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

Re: Relation between markup and transport

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-talk@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107052357180.5616-100000@info.q2.net>
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sooner it's superseded the better, IMHO.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:26 GMT