W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-talk@w3.org > May to June 2001

Re: text/html for xml extensions of XHTML

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 14:52:57 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
To: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>
cc: <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <mozilla-mathml@mozilla.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.31.0105031451110.988-100000@HIXIE.netscape.com>
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Robert Miner wrote:
>
> If not, you need to give me some sign that you actually understand the
> issues at stake.  From what you write, you give the clear impression
> that you don't think either of the following issues are important:
>
> 1) For some time to come, most web authors will be preparing content
>    that will be read predominantly with older user agents, and
>    therefore need to send documents as text/html.
>
> 2) For some time to come, many web authors will end up sending XHTML
>    as text/html due to circumstances beyond their control, even if
>    they are willing to send it as text/xml.

I acknowledge those points completely. Neither of these points require any
documents sent as text/html to be handled as text/xml by any browser.


> If you do acknowledge those points, then you don't need me to point
> out why your analogy with PNGs is not very relevant.

My analogy with PNGs is merely to highlight that content type sniffing is
fundamentally flawed.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                            )\     _. - ._.)   fL
Invited Expert, CSS Working Group                     /. `- '  (  `--'
The views expressed in this message are strictly      `- , ) -  > ) \
personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 17:51:47 GMT

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