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

Re: content type for XHTML fragments

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:07:51 -0600
Message-ID: <43CBC4D7.4060604@aptest.com>
To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
CC: Spartanicus <spartanicus.3@ntlworld.ie>, www-html@w3.org

If it were me....  I would include a DOCTYPE and ensure that the 
fragment was actually legal xml (the example below is not).  Somehting like:

     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
<p>This is <em>really</em> cool</p>

And use a content type of application/xml-external-parsed-entity.  Then my parser can look at the DOCTYPE 
if it chooses, but no one will think that it is actually XHTML.  

Garret Wilson wrote:

> Thanks, but that's not a full solution---how does the application (the 
> Wiki, the newsfeed---whatever) know whether to process and interpret 
> tags? If it were really plain text, the "this is <em>really</em> cool" 
> could be a plain text example of how to use to use markup, rather than 
> actual use of markup.
> Garret
> Spartanicus wrote:
>>Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com> wrote:
>>>A common use nowadays, especially with wikis and newsfeeds, is to store 
>>>XHTML fragments (such as "this is <em>really</em> cool") to be later 
>>>integrated into a larger XHTML document.
>>>What content type should we use for XHTML fragments?
>>As long as the application that processes the fragments handles it
>>properly it shouldn't matter, as these fragments should never be
>>accessible in other ways.
>>I'd use text/plain

Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 16:08:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:06:12 UTC