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

Re: Question about XHTML 2.0 and content type

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:20:24 -0000
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <drt0vj$k2m$1@sea.gmane.org>


"Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote in message 
news:43E1E547.1080204@lachy.id.au...
>
> 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.

So the idea is that XHTML 2.0 user agents will send accept headers something 
like this:

accept: application/xhtml+xml; q=1; 
profile=http://www.w3.org/2006/02/xhtml-basic, application/xhtml+xml; q=0.9; 
profile=http://www.w3.org/2006/02/xhtml-print, application/xhtml+xml; q=0.5; 
profile=http://www.w3.org/2006/02/xhtml

etc.?

Jim. 
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 13:22:16 GMT

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