Marcos Caceres schreef: > 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 :) XHTML is a W3C standard that’s been Recommended status for many years and has plenty of implementations (except for Internet Explorer, at this time). This should be more than enough to warrant inclusion in the list of MIME type mappings. I’m against using the application/xml type for XHTML by the way. A more specific MIME type is available and it has its use in certain occasions (e.g. for content negotiation, to determine whether the UA is requesting a human-readable XHTML version or a site-specific machine-readable XML version). XML is a transmission format that a lot of different formats make use of, however each format using XML is still a format on its own and should have its own MIME type. E.g. application/xhtml+xml should not be confused with application/rdf+xml, even though both could be served as application/xml. ~Laurens -- Note: New email address! Please update your address book. ~~ Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!! ~~ Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 10:27:09 UTC