W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > December 2008

Re: XHTML 1.x mime type document

From: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:48:54 +1300
To: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
Cc: public-xhtml2@w3.org
Message-id: <49516AD6.8050700@dean.org.nz>

Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On 24 Dec, Dean Edridge wrote:
>
>   
>> text/xml is being deprecated isn't it? I've seen several reports of
>> problems with text/xml [1] [2] [3]
>>     
>
>   The XHTML WG cannot "deprecate" text/xml.

No, of course the "XHTML WG" can't deprecate text/xml, the W3C hasn't 
had a "XHTML WG" for almost two years now. And I wasn't asking the XHTML 
2 WG to deprecate it anyway, they are not authorised to.

> The Note in question 
>   does not encourage people to use this type.
>   

You are encouraging the use of it by saying that it is a valid XHTML 
media type. The XHTML and XML experts in the HTML WG and WHATWG have 
warned against using text/xml so it has not been added to the HTML5 spec.

>
>
>
>   
>> text/html is the mime type for HTML, if you try to use XHTML 1.x and 
>> label it as text/html it becomes invalid HTML4. Trying to use XHTML but 
>>     
>
>   No. It is quite possible to write an XHTML 1.* document, label it as
>   text/html, and make it valid.

The mime type is authoritative and rules over syntax. If you save a web 
page using a web browser and it saves it with a .html or .htm file 
extension, it is HTML *not* XHTML, this is an inconvenient truth for a 
lot of people.

>  
>
>   
>> sending it as text/html also gives people the false impression that they 
>> have transitioned from HTML to XHTML when they haven't. I don't think 
>> it's in the best interest of XHTML to tell people that their documents 
>> are valid XHTML when using the text/html mime type.
>>     
>
>   With the current situation regarding browser support being as it is,
>   we judged this a good, if interim, solution to aid migration.
>   

Migration to what? Invalid HTML 4?
It most certainly hasn't aided migration in the past, and I can 
guarantee you that it wont aid migration in the future. When the W3C 
said that text/html was a valid mime type for XHTML they essentially 
said to Microsoft that application/xhtml+xml was just an optional extra 
and this is the number one reason why Microsoft has never supported XHTML.

>   
>> There's some other things that I'm concerned about:
>>     
>
>   For formal questions regarding group scope, please refer to the XHTML
>   2 WG and HTML WG charters.

I didn't ask a question about group scope, I already know the scope of 
both groups. I have read both the HTML and XHTML 2 WG charters many 
times (including the unauthorised changes to both), as well as both 
HTML5 and XHTML 2 spec's. I am very much well informed regarding this 
matter (and the politics surrounding it) thank you very much, there are 
only be a few others that would know the situation better than me. The 
HTML WG, as they are chartered to, is developing XHTML in partnership 
with the WHATWG who have been developing XHTML for over five years now, 
so the XHTML 2 WG will need to address the issues I raised and make the 
appropriate changes, a simple dismissal will not be sufficient.


Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

-- 
Dean Edridge
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 22:49:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:50 GMT