Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter

L. David Baron wrote on 07/03/2008 06:17:22 PM:
>
> On Thursday 2008-07-03 17:23 -0400, John Kemp wrote:
> > Jamie Lokier wrote:
> >> Sam Ruby wrote:
> >>> http://feedvalidator.org/testcases/atom/1.1/brief-noerror.xml
>
> > The content-type is reported (via 'View Page Info') in my Firefox 2 as

> > application/xhtml+xml. However, the page is rendered as if it were an
> > ATOM feed (which usually has the content-type application/atom+xml
IIRC)
> > rather than as if it were XHTML.
>
> That's because the MIME-type dispatch of the application/xhtml+xml
> type triggers XML processing by namespace-based dispatch.
>
> Mixed-namespace documents are (or at least were) probably the
> "killer app" of switching from HTML to XHTML, but there's been
> little standardized so far for MIME type labeling (and handling
> thereof) or content negotiation of such documents, so we're stuck
> using the MIME types of the constituent languages.
>
> I tried to start some discussion of these issues in the CDF group
> back in 2005 (see [1] and [2]), and I think we came to consensus on
> some issues (not necessarily agreeing with what I proposed in those
> documents), but the charter wasn't really geared towards producing a
> spec in that area, and I think it's since been clarified to say that
> such issues are clearly out of scope for CDF and should be discussed
> by the TAG.

As the author of much of this content, I would prefer that a means be
provided to trigger the display of these pages as XML, complete with
displaying the comments.

If I can't trigger the XML display, being able to force a text/plain
display would meet my needs.

- Sam Ruby