Mark Baker wrote: > My concern is with the mention of the application/xml media type > there, which I feel inappropriate because RFC 3023 doesn't license, > for example, that an XHTML document delivered as application/xml is > intended to evoke XHTML semantics. I agree with this concern. We have actually removed application/xml from recent drafts of the XHTML Media Types document [1] because we feel discussing it as a viable XHTML media type is misleading - in particular because the follow-your-nose story for it is muddled. [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts#xhtml-media-types -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.comReceived on Friday, 16 January 2009 20:47:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:56:21 GMT