W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?)

From: Neil Whiteley <neil.whiteley@tag2.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:55:44 +0100
To: "'David Dorward'" <david@dorward.me.uk>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAIDllaWVPlkuX1m7OekKwzMKDAAAQAAAAwFoWaBmuxECcZlyXRvZdGgEAAAAA@tag2.net>

Hi David,

<david>
What good reason is there for serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html? What
advantages does it give you over Appendix C conformant XHTML 1.0
served as text/html?
</david>

Thanks for your comment. The answer is none. I was simply correcting a
misinterpretation of the mime type requirements of XHTML 1.1

Best Regards,

Neil Whiteley
Tag2

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David Dorward
Sent: 22 June 2005 23:45
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?)


On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 10:18:57PM +0100, Neil Whiteley wrote:

> A lot depends on your interpretation of the document you refer to and
> specifically the meaning of *SHOULD NOT* used in the summaries table.

What good reason is there for serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html? What
advantages does it give you over Appendix C conformant XHTML 1.0
served as text/html?

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 22:55:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC