W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: [widgets] Content-type sniffing and file extension to MIME mapping

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:42:09 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670812091242p75426565k700be0dacf9c78f2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:53:22 +0100, Marcos Caceres
>> <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Moi? a personal political agenda to rid the word of
>>> application/xhtml+xml? never! :P
>>> Seriously speaking, the list of types is supposed to reflect what the
>>> working group believes are the core development technologies that
>>> underpin widgets (for version 1.0, at least). I personally don't have
>>> an issue with including application/xhtml+xml, but I think it is
>>> unfair to require implementations to support it. Also, having optional
>>> supported types introduces fragmentation. However, we could add
>>> application/xhtml+xml and say that if the implementation does not
>>> handle xhtml, then it may treat it as text/html... but that is
>>> probably just asking for problems(?).
>> I'd prefer if they treated it as application/xml instead.
>> In fact, authors who want to use XHTML (or SVG, etc) in widgets could just
>> use the .xml extension and it would work.
> In mozilla it gives different results if you serve usng
> application/xml, application/svg+xml or application/xhtml+xml. We
> create different types of Document nodes depending on what mimetype is
> used. So an SVG document, or plain XML document, won't have .cookies
> or .body for example.
> If this is ideal or not can of course be debated. I know Hixie has
> been advocating only having a single type of Document object, ever.

Seems that there is still too much incompatibility to suggest
"application/xml" support across Widget user agents. I think we should
just stick with text/html. If authors want to use "application/xml",
then they can use <content src="somefile" type="application/xml" />
and hope for the best :)

Marcos Caceres
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 20:42:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:13 UTC