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: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 06:55:06 +0000 (UTC)
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709050650500.3943@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> OK, then perhaps it reflected your thinking at one time?
> 
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2006/04/13/Dont-throw-charset-out-with-the-bathwater#c1169761908

There's a difference between what I agree the spec should say (which 
involves compromising between the various constraints like being 
consistent with other technologies and writing a spec that browser vendors 
will implement) and what I want it to say.


> 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.

I don't think it's that simple. For example, image/* are a lost cause -- 
browsers uniformly treat any image types that they support as synonyms for 
"supported image type", and they use magic numbers to identify types 
beyond that. <script> elements ignore Content-Type altogether. And so on.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2007 06:55:31 UTC

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