W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2007

Re: let authors choose text/html or application/xhtml+xml (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:52:39 -0400
Message-ID: <46DE2807.1060406@us.ibm.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: www-archive@w3.org

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> (*) I can only presume that the current HTML5 draft reflects Ian's 
>> current thinking on the matter which is that certain media types are to 
>> be treated as authoritative, and others are to be treated as a hint and 
>> possibly overridden based on sniffing.
> Actually, it doesn't. I think we should dump Content-Type altogether. The 
> spec represents the closest I could get to the existing specs (in 
> particular HTTP) without being ignored by browser vendors. There are many 
> things in the HTML5 spec that I disagree with, but that are there because 
> rational arguments were made and evidence presented. Another example of 
> something in HTML5 I don't want there is the /> nonsense you argued for. :-)

OK, then perhaps it reflected your thinking at one time?


In any case, I'm currently of a mind that all the text/* mime types are 
beyond saving, but the rest are worth fighting for.  For what it is worth.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 03:53:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:14 UTC