W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Content-Document-Type: was (Re: MIME types vs. DOCTYPE)

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:05:37 -0500
Message-ID: <008201be64e8$0fc8ca00$0b2e249b@fileroom.Synapse>
To: "XML Dev" <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-html-editor@w3.org>
John Cowan wrote:

>Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
>>         Please explain what:
>>
>> Content-type: text/xhtml
>>
>>         can possibly do for you that:
>>
>> Content-type: text/xml; doctype="http://www.w3.org/xhtml.dtd"
>>
>>         cannot do. (Note: the use of doctype = dtd is an example, the
doctype can
>> point to any URI. Just like the XML namespace URI, the doctype URI serves
as
>> a unique identifier and implies no particular meaning.
>
>I agree, except that I would prefer to see an FPI rather than (or
>in addition to) a URI.  That would be extensible to HTML as well as
>XHTML, and therefore to the text/html media type as well as the
>text/xml media type.
>

This is a good idea.

A general way to employ the Content-type header to specify a document type
is:

Content-type: text/xml; element="html"; fpi="-//W3C//DTD XTHML 1.0
Strict//EN";              uri="http://www.w3.org/XHTML.DTD"

This should apply to text/html, text/xml, text/sgml, application/xml etc.

deja vu all over again :-)

Jonathan Borden
http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 1999 15:12:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:44 GMT