- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:10:20 +0200
- To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "Ben 'Cerbera' Millard" <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
- Cc: "mobileOK WG" <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:20:57 +0200, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote: > The alternative is to, I suppose, define HTML Basic, which seems > unnecessary. As you note, many browsers are just parsing XHTML (Basic) > as HTML anyway. The specific problem here is that you advocate people to use 1) XHTML Basic and 2) use the application/xhtml+xml MIME type and 3) indicate that parsing this as HTML is ok. If pages are actually being authored against a browser which uses an HTML parser for application/xhtml+xml this will might break those pages in browsers that correctly use an XML parser for application/xhtml+xml such as Firefox, Opera and Safari. I suppose advocating that people use the text/html MIME type is fine. Saying they should use application/xhtml+xml is not given the broken mobile browsers out there as it will likely result in more divergence between desktop and mobile browsers. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 14:11:44 UTC