W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: including ruby in an xhtml 1 transitional doc

From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:31:49 -0400
Message-ID: <3D2F2095.59CFE88B@i18nGuy.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: www-international@w3.org, Chris Croome <chris@webarchitects.co.uk>

Thanks Chris's.

With respect to C. Lilley's last comment, I am a bit surprised. I was
under the impression that XHTML was a hybrid that allowed older browsers
could work with, provided new features weren't taken advantage of, and
at the same time made the markup more regular and robust so that XML and
its extensions could be employed.

However, the last paragraph suggests to me that users migrating to xhtml
1.1 cross the rubicon, dragging in a set of more advanced requirements
while eliminating the use of older browsers.

In any event, the Ruby and Unicode example page:
http://www.i18nguy.com/unicode/unicode-example-ruby.html

seems to display well with IE 5.5+ despite being served up as text/html
charset=utf-8.
Netscape 6 and Opera 6 do ok, but don't support Ruby, they simply
produce the annotation alongside the base text.

When the browsers support the media types, I will consider making the
change to application/xhtml+xml.

I do think the media type recommendation
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020430/
is incorrect in describing itself as "best current practice".
It is not current practice and it undermines the credibility of other
documents to declare so until user agents at least recognize it.

I would rather it have said it is a recommendation for what should be
considered proper practice once industry supports it, or some such.
I would be happy to learn I have misunderstood something about this.

My thanks to Chris for the corrections to my markup to bring the page
forward to xhtml 1.1.

tex


Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> On Friday, July 12, 2002, 3:04:32 PM, Chris wrote:
> 
> CC> Hi
> 
> CC> On Thu 11-Jul-2002 at 02:53:08PM -0400, Tex Texin wrote:
> >>
> >> When I change from text/html to application/xhtml+xml and the like, IE
> >> no longer simply opens the page, but instead gives me a choice for
> >> downloading or opening.
> >>
> >> Is there a way to avoid this and have the page treated as a directly
> >> browsable page?
> 
> CC> Not with current versions of IE -- they don't support
> CC> application/xhtml+xml.
> 
> That is correct - they do not support XHTML and thus, they do not know
> what to do with its MIME type.
> 
> text/html is only suitable if you are happy to have your XHTML
> processed in a non-XHTML processor (which will not parse it correctly,
> will not provide an XML DOM, and so on but may or may not display
> something that users can see).
> --
>  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
                         
XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 14:32:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:59 GMT