- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:17:29 +0100
- To: public-cdf@w3.org
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 08:03, Mark Baker wrote: > On 1/31/06, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > > Use of text/* for XML beeing frowned upon and text/html beeing the > > incorrect type for HTML are different things though... > > My bad; I didn't need to talk about the general XML issue since, in > the context of WICD, we're only dealing with HTML/XHTML. So Ned Freed is disappointed with the quality of many of the documents that are labeled "text/html". Does that mean "text/html" is "generally" frowned upon? The thread you quoted shows the opposite. You can count one vote, mine, less for "application/*". Is that enough to turn "generally agreed" into "generally not agreed"? Why do I need to teach my software that "application/foo" is unreadable, *except* when foo is "xhtml+xml", in which case it can be treated as if it was "text/xhtml", line endings and character encoding and all? This seems to me an ugly hack. Just because somebody said that "text/*" should not be used for XML, XHTML uses "application/*" and then adds a suffix to say that actually it should be treated as "text/*" after all. I understand that the CDF (WICD?) WG doesn't want to create new MIME types and so you depend on the HTML WG, but let this be recorded so that whoever next creates a MIME type for an XML-based formats won't assume that it is "generally agreed" that "text/*" is incorrect. Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 11:17:49 UTC