W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2002

Re: W3C uri: /MarkUp

From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 02:24:05 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20020213.022405.115924608.mimasa@w3.org>
To: www-html@w3.org
"William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu> wrote:

> RFC 3236 is just a registration.

Exactly.  This registration alone won't solve all the problems.

> RFC 2854 (dated June 2000, actually written earlier) explicitly
> envisions the modularization of HTML.

However, it didn't explicitly say that 'text/html' is applicable to
modularized XHTML.  The only explicitly mentioned variant of XHTML
is "a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01",
which is XHTML 1.0 document that follows the HTML compatibility
guidelines.

> There is still inadequate guidance unless one listens to individuals
> who profess knowledge of the right thing.

It is well-known that MIME media types don't work well with mixed-
namespace documents.  There is an extensive discussion about media
types on the Technical Architecture Group [1], and out of this
discussion, an Internet Draft was written about "Registration of
xmlns Media Feature Tag" [2].  While this I-D is still just an idea
and has no official status, this could be a way to cope with mixed-
namespace documents in MIME context.  An example in this I-D
describes how to identify an XHTML document containing SVG, MathML,
SMIL, and XLink content, using a combination of the Content-Type
and Content-Features headers.

RFC 3236 doesn't magically solve the media type woes, but it's
a step forward.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/
[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stlaurent-feature-xmlns-01.txt

Regards,
-- 
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 12:40:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:50 GMT