- From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:14:02 +0200
- To: mike@w3.org
- Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:13:02 +0200, <mike@w3.org> wrote: > Your comment on the document as a whole: >> The tests require XHTML. What is the rationale for this? My research[1] >> >> shows that all tested mobile browsers support HTML, and also that many >> >> treat application/xhtml+xml as if it were text/html (i.e., they don't >> use >> XML parsers). Therefore, for compatibility with existing mobile >> browsers, >> the guideline for authors should be to use HTML, or if they use XHTML >> to >> follow appendix C of XHTML 1.0 (even when using application/xhtml+xml). > > > Working Group Resolution: > Most mobile browsers do not support everything HTML defines. Most desktop browsers do not support everything HTML defines, either. I don't see why this would be relevant. My comment was about the MIME type and the syntax, not about which features are used. > Our > experience is that XHTML Basic delivered with application/xhtml+xml is > more likely to result in a functional user experience than other > combinations. What is the difference in the user experience from XHTML Basic delivered as text/html? > [...] -- Simon Pieters
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 09:14:13 UTC