- From: Jim Dabell <jim-www-html@jimdabell.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 18:29:14 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Tuesday 08 Apr 2003 5:59 pm, you wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 05:41:39PM +0100, Jim Dabell wrote: > | Will there be a new MIME type for XHTML2, or are people expecting to > | use application/xhtml+xml? If there is not going to be an > | XHTML2-specific MIME type, how are servers supposed to distinguish > | between user-agents that can handle XHTML2 and those that cannot (for > | the purpose of content negotiation in particular)? > > The world didn't end when we used the same MIME types for HTML 4 and > HTML 3.2! HTML4 was backwards-compatible. XHTML2 is explicitly not. > Besides which, most browsers that handle application/xhtml+xml do so by > pushing it through a generic XML+CSS/XSLT rendering engine after > applying a default style, a technique that should still work with > XHTML2. The technique might work, the particular implementations will not. Even when the installed user-base of XHTML2 user-agents is at 90% or so, there will still be the 10% that need an older version, unless you propose writing "backwards-compatible" XHTML2? -- Jim Dabell
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 13:30:18 UTC