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

Re: Question about XHTML 2.0 and content type

From: Christian Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:13:58 +0100
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200602022213.58694.Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>

Am Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2006 05:55 schrieb Jukka K. Korpela:
> [...]
> > and thus it must not be served as text/html.
>
> This depends on the definition du jour of text/html. If that definition
> says that flying pigs can be served as text/html, they can. The definition
> is already arbitrary and sloppy, and always was, so if it happens to
> exclude XHTML 2.0 at present, things are so just by that arbitrary
> definition. (Allowing text/html for XHTML 1.0 postulates that user agents
> use the DOCTYPE declaration or similar methods to decide which HTML the
> stuff is, and there is no reason why this could not be extended to
> XHTML 2.0, XHTML 3.2, etc.)
I basically agree with all that Jukka wrote, but want to remind that some 
people (including me) think that we need content negotiation. Mime Types are 
one possibility, Mime Type Profiles are another.
Currently, Mime Types are used for content negotiation, and the question is 
how this will work with XHTML 2.0.

Current practice:

If the user agent prefers application/xhtml+xml, send XHTML 1.0, XHTML 1.1, 
XHTML Basic or some other form of XML based HTML that is based on or similar 
to XHTML Modularization.

If the user agent prefers text/html, send HTML 4.01 or older.

Works great.
-- 
Christian Hujer
Free software developer
E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com
WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/ http://daimonin.sf.net/
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 21:14:04 GMT

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