Re: content type for XHTML fragments: reformulated

Jim Ley wrote:
> "Daniel Schierbeck" <daniel.schierbeck@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:43DCC855.80507@gmail.com...
>   
>> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> I also don't see why would want to send it over the wire as 
>> application/xhtml+xml.
>>     
>> Because it's not SVG/whatever. It *is* XHTML.
>>     
>
> but it is not an XHTML document.  It cannot standalone as one, so it seems 
> to make little sense to send it as the same type as a standalone XHTML 
> document?
>
> Jim. 
Good point. Then application/xml would seem reasonable. Introducing an 
application/xhtml-fragment+xml may be overkill.


Cheers,
Daniel schierbeck