W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > July to August 2001

Re: Relation between markup and transport

From: William F. Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200107052117.f65LHms01690@pluto.math.albany.edu>
To: www-talk@w3.org
Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>, Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:57:39 -0400, writes:

> > 2. Namespace extensions.
> A maguffin, frenetic W3C boosterism notwithstanding. 

The key point in the distinction between "text/html" and "text/xml"
should be whether there is implied knowledge of markup vocabulary.
Namespace extensions provide that.

> > A. Oxford-TEI-Pizza-Chef-custom-brew-with-math under XML.  Serve as
> >    "text/xml".  Browser provides tree portrayal if no external
> >    application (with a general triage facility for all XML
> >    applications) is specified.

For this hypothetical example I imagine no implied knowledge of
vocabulary even though there may be substantial intelligent
communities where the vocabulary is known.

> > not sniffing.  
> Yes it is.  It may not be only when the semantics of the content-type
> require that a "first line" be examined by a compliant processor (to
> decide among in-paradigm alternatives).

Would you call it sniffing if a revised spec said that when the XML
form of HTML is served through HTTP as "text/html" the first non-blank
line of the body of the served object must be a line matching stated

> (Personally, I think the best answer may be a separate text/xhtml

Then how long would it be before content providers could assume that
this reaches the same audience as "text/html"?  Wouldn't the old type
name remain as the default content type?

If this is done, would it also make sense to change the name of
the root element from "html" to "xhtml"?    :-)

[ Related:  Baker draft re "application/xhtml+xml"
  and comment in a discussion there, whether wise or not, criticizing a
  proposal for "text/xhtml+xml".  Also under RFC3023 the formula
  "text/html+xml" might be used.  These ideas evade the issue of whether
  the web's core transport content type should be allowed to evolve. ]

> In large organizations, the "person in control of the content" is the
> server admin.  Assuming this functionary has at least two braincells

Another case is that of a software outfit that relies on a network
provider's HTTP server.  This case was cited by a leading member of
the Math WG in the mozilla-mathml discussion.

                                    -- Bill
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 17:17:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:03 UTC