W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > October 2007

Re: XHTML 1.1 (Feb 2007 WD) as text/html?

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:29:45 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300710020329v1253ea86oefb05458d7b44620@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>, "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>

Hi Shane,

My memory of this discussion is that we came down the other. :) I.e.,
we decided _against_ the enforcement of a media type of
'application/xhtml+xml', and supported allowing people to use
'text/html'.

In my view there is little to gain from insisting on an XML media type
for XHTML. MIME types have been increasingly hijacked over the years
to designate a preferred processing application, rather than a
document type. This isn't likely to change any time soon, so we might
as well live with it. In which case it would be far better to leave
the 'processing application' designation as 'an HTML or XHTML
renderer' (i.e., as 'text/html'), and leave it up to authors and
publishing systems to indicate the _document type_ through other
mechanisms (such as DOCTYPE, @xmlns, @profile, or whatever techniques
can be devised).

Regards,

Mark

On 02/10/2007, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>
> Note that there are updated drafts of ALL XHTML Working Group specs
> available via http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts.
>
> Yes, that text has been changed.  See, for example,
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-xhtml11-20070416/conformance.html#strict
>
>
>
> olivier Thereaux wrote:
> >
> > (apologies, had originally mailed the wrong list)
> >
> > Hello, XHTML WG,
> >
> > Could you tell the status of this paragraph in the XHTML 1.1 spec? The
> > latest working draft (Feb 2007... getting old) states that XHTML 1.1
> > SHOULD be served as text/html (or app/xhtml+xml) and this is confusing
> > people.
> >
> > I think I recall a message from Shane saying this was a typo, but could
> > not find it in either www-html-editor (could only find a few reports
> > of the issue, but no answer from the WG), nor in www-html, nor in
> > www-validator where I thought this had been raised. Other echoes I got
> > seem to show this was actually on purpose.
> >
> > Is there any public record of what will happen to this statement in the
> > next draft?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -- olivier
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from Rado Faletic <rado.faletic@anu.edu.au> -----
> >
> > From: Rado Faletic <rado.faletic@anu.edu.au>
> > To: www-validator@w3.org
> > X-Archived-At:
> > http://www.w3.org/mid/AB7951B9-369C-4F87-862A-95C110BE1691@anu.edu.au
> >
> >
> > note that in the XHTML1.1 working draft (16 Feb 2007) it says the
> > following:
> > XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type
> > text/html as defined in [RFC2854] or application/xhtml+xml as defined
> > in [RFC3236].
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > ----- End Forwarded Message -----
> >
>
> --
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>
>
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 10:30:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:46 GMT