W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > August 2001

Re: XHTML m12n Hacking

From: William F. Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 11:10:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200108121510.f7CFAGe21404@pluto.math.albany.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org
Cc: www-math@w3.org
Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com> writes to www-html@w3.org

[ . . . ]
> ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C12343.77300020
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> 	name="m12n.dtd"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> 	filename="m12n.dtd"

Good choice by the content provider since there is no sane "action"
that can be contemplated other than those for text/plain and the
actual content is safe for "text/plain".

: <!-- XHTML Version -->
: <!ENTITY % XHTML.version  "-//SBP//DTD XHTML Plain 2001-05//EN" >
[ . . . ]
: <!-- Add in the Ruby Module =
[ . . . ]
:             "http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby/xhtml-ruby-1.mod" >
: %xhtml-ruby.mod;]]>

For short: "XHTML + Ruby".

So this is an XML document type in the XHTML family.  The XHTML
family consists of XML document types that are namespace extensions
of XHTML basic.

This example, "XHTML + MathML", and "XHTML + Ruby + MathML"
are three key examples that are sane candidates for coverage,
perhaps with additional conditions, in the definition that we
seek from the HTML WG, for the HTTP content-type "text/html".

Is there anyone who thinks these three examples should be handled
differently in that regard?

(Having read over the list deliberations regarding RFC 3023, I'm
inclined to wonder whether the criteria for "text/html" coverage
should be different under HTTP than under SMTP.  As I see it, W3C has
the flexibility to make the distinction.

                                    -- Bill
Received on Sunday, 12 August 2001 11:10:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:49 GMT