W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2002

Re: validator not doing application/xhtml+xml

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:58:06 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020117184234.030a4d28@localhost>
To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>, Simon Hill <red_one@othersdietrying.com>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Just for the record:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg15878.html

says that application/xhtml+xml has been approved as an informal RFC
by the IESG. So I don't see any big reason to wait to implement that
in the validator.

Regards,  Martin.

At 11:05 02/01/14 +0000, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>
> > On 14 Jan 2002, Simon Hill wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 04:03, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Individual draft. If it was adopted by an IETF WG it might be more
> > > > convincing as something to start work towards...
> > > >
> > > > But really, RFC3023 already puts the +xml suffix convention on the
> > > > standards track; that is more than enough to go on, given that
> > > > application/xhtml is already supported.
> > >
> > > so as far as the IETF is concerned, what's the mime type for XHTML?
> >
> > I'd guess application/html, based on RFC 2584.
>
>gah! text/html...
>
>sorry,
>
>L.
>
><L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 08:05:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:00 GMT