- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:48:01 -0400
- To: "Simon Pieters" <zcorpan@gmail.com>
- Cc: mike@w3.org, public-bpwg-comments@w3.org, "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
On 10/3/07, Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I believe the intent of the reply was to say that HTML (and XHTML *not-*Basic) defines a lot of stuff that mobile browsers don't understand. If there were an HTML Basic that may well be fine too to specify for mobile phones, but it doesn't exist at this point. Well, there is cHTML, but it's pretty limited even by mobile standards today. Hence it's not so much the "X" as the "Basic" that is useful about XHTML Basic. > What is the difference in the user experience from XHTML Basic delivered > as text/html? All else being equal? Personally I don't think this changes much in practice. The argument that application/xhtml+xml should be used comes from the fact that it is mandated by XHTML Basic, and that in turn is a decent idea to specify for the above reasons. I think the message is merely stick to the standard as much as possible to maximize the chances of compatibility.
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 13:48:29 UTC