W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Question about XHTML 2.0 and content type

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:56:07 +1100
Message-ID: <43E1E547.1080204@lachy.id.au>
To: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org

Jim Ley wrote:
> XHTML should get a diferent mime-type than application/xhtml+xml
> otherwise we cannot content-negotiate it with clients that support
> XHTML 1.1 but not 2.0.

There is an optional profile parameter defined for application/xhtml+xml 
in RFC 3236.  Besides stating that it accepts a URI, it's currently not 
defined very well except to say that it's designed for content 
negotiation.  The example in the RFC uses the URI of the XHTML Basic 
DTD, although using the namespace URI, since it's different from XHTML 
1.x, might be a better alternative.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 10:56:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:05 GMT