Re: Requests for revising the XHTML 2.0 specification.

Mike Housman wrote:
> 1. Please allow MIME type text/xml+xhtml in the XHTML 2.0 specification. 
> This presents less security risk than MIME type application/xml+xhtml.

Firstly, neither of those MIME types exist, although I believe you are 
referring to application/xhtml+xml.  Secondly, what security risks? 
Thirdly, you should read why text/xml and other text/*+xml MIME types 
are not recommended [1].

> 2. Please allow IFRAME in the XHTML 2.0 specification. Microsoft 
> Internet Explorer treats the OBJECT tag as ActiveX which is disabled by 
> me and many other web users for security reasons, and thus many webpages 
> do not display properly. Many webmasters would prefer IFRAME in XHTML 
> 2.0 compliant webpages.

The behaviour of a broken and insecure browser is no reason alter the 
spec, especially when many other browsers don't suffer from the same 
problems.  And besides, <object> in XHTML 2 is in a different namespace 
from XHTML 1.x, and so no browser supports it at all.

> 3. Please allow the SRC attribute for the DIV element in the XHTML 2.0 
> specification. This would enable the use of DIV as an alternative to the 
> IFRAME and OBJECT elements.

The src attribute applies to almost every element in XHTML 2, but what 
difference does it make by using <div> instead of <object>?

> 4. Please create a new comment element with start tag <!> and end tag 
> </!> to replace [or be an alternate to] the current comment syntax: <!-- 
> comment -->.

Why?  The comment syntax is defined by the XML recommendation and <!> 
would be illegal in XML since "!" is not a valid name [2]

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-media-types
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-Name

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/