- From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-talk@w3.org
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, William F. Hammond wrote: > > Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:12:17 -0700, writes: >>>> 2. Namespace extensions. >>> ... >>> section 5.1 of XHTML states that only documents that, by virtue of >> >> Section 5.1 explicitly allows as text/html a doc prepared consistent >> with appendix C without forbidding any other XHTML. > > Nor allowing any other XHTML either. There's a lot of muddled thinking in the spec as it stands. The sooner it's superseded the better, IMHO. I seriously doubt whether the spec in its present form can be read to provide consistent (or complete) guidelines. >> The point is that [mass-market user agents] such agents should not >> be allowed to "own" text/xml. I'm still not sure I understand this. What does "own" mean? That they get to impose their private definitions? >> Such agents should be required to respect a user's webcap or >> mailcap entry for "text/xml" as for any other content type Sure. What is the danger here? >> except possibly "text/html", Danger, danger, Will Robinson! >> which by historical precedent is an exception that plays the role >> of the web's default content type. ITYM kitchen-sink content-type... > I see no reason for text/html to be treated any differently to > text/xml, image/png, or foo/bar. Yep. Right now, text/html is very much underdefined for *practical* purposes. Arjun
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 23:49:47 UTC