- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:41:16 -0400
- To: "Susan Lesch" <lesch@w3.org>
- Cc: public-bpwg@w3.org
Thanks very much Susan -- I think you're right about the term MIME type. It's a well-understood term and I think it's synonymous with "Internet Media Type", but I see several sources that say the latter is the preferred term. I'll make this change. No we are not planning to register any types; I'm attempting to reference the XHTML type in this paragraph, but made two errors: Yes, application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml should not have been mentioned in the document. We will remove it in the next draft. And you may have noticed that I mistyped a letter in the XHTML Internet media type as well, which will be fixed. Regards, Sean On 7/27/06, Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Congratulations on your First Public Working Draft [1] for mobileOK. A > comment for 2.2: > > "If the document's MIME type, as specified in the HTTP response > Content-Type header, is not application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml or > application/xhtml+wml , FAIL" > > These are called Internet Media Types (rather than MIME I think) and are > not registered. Are you planning to register them? > > I am not an expert but am checking to see if mobileOK requires XHTML > Basic and Basic requires application/xhtml+xml. > > "If the document's DOCTYPE's PUBLIC identifier is not an XHTML > Basic identifier (at present, "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.1//EN" or > "-//W3C//DTD XHTML Basic 1.0//EN"), FAIL" > > In case the references help, the topic came up in March of 2004 on two > different W3C lists [2,3]. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobileOK-20060712/ > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2004Mar/0001 > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Mar/0000 > > Hope this helps, > -- > Susan Lesch http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/ > mailto:lesch@w3.org tel:+1.612.216.2436 > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ > > > >
Received on Saturday, 29 July 2006 12:24:14 UTC