Re: Mimetype: application/xhtml+xml -- add to validator?

"William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu> wrote:

> BTW why didn't the Baker draft propose text/xhtml+xml or perhaps
> propose both text/xhtml+xml and application/xhtml+xml ?  Given the
> nature of XHTML it seems to me that text/xhtml+xml would be more
> consistent with the distinction made between text/xml and
> application/xml in RFC 3023 (Murata, St.Laurent, Kohn: XML Media
> Types).

Because originally the HTML WG proposed "text/xhtml+xml" but got a number
of strong objections to use text/* subtype on the ietf-xml-mime mailing
list, so we changed our proposal to use "application/xhtml+xml" instead.
See the "text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml" thread on ietf-xml-mime
starting from: http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00612.html

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium