W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

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

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:53:09 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670903060653h50db4042v8571899c333e00e6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
2009/3/6 Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>:
> Marcos Caceres schreef:
>>>
>>> 2. The XHTML mapping should also appear in the file identification table
>>> [2].
>>
>> What version of XHTML should I be pointing to? 1.0 or 1.1?
>
> Short version:
>
> XHTML 1.1.
>
> Long version:
>
> The XHTML 1.0 spec has some interesting informative prose in section 4,
> “differences with HTML 4”, but that is probably repeated somewhere in HTML 5
> (and generally common sense). The Appendix C HTML Compatibility Guidelines
> and the optional text/html MIME type do not apply in this case.
>
> XHTML 1.1 is XHTML 1.0 expressed using XHTML Modularization (something that
> is unfortunately lost in HTML5, it seems), and in addition to some minor
> modifications removes all the deprecated transitional stuff. As we all know,
> just because XHTML 1.1 removes the deprecated elements doesn’t mean that UAs
> no longer need to support it, but for authoring it seems good practice.
>
> Neither specification can be used stand-alone by the way; XHTML 1.0
> references HTML4 and XHTML 1.1 references XHTML Modularization which
> references XHTML 1.0.
>
> ~Laurens
>

Done. Thanks for the explanation. I'll upload the new draft to CVS later today.



-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 6 March 2009 14:53:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT