- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:34:05 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11562
Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mail@tobyinkster.co.uk
--- Comment #7 from Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> 2010-12-18 23:34:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I have not been aware of this. Last time I stumbled uppon RDFa it required
> text/xml+html for adding more namespaces (which broke IEs).
The XHTML+RDFa spec has never required the "application/xhtml+xml" media type.
In fact it doesn't make any explicit media type requirements. It is, however,
built upon XHTML 1.1, which according to
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ may be labeled as "text/html" provided
it follows certain guidelines.
The HTML+RDFa spec, which is still just a draft, is truly HTML (not XHTML)
based.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 18 December 2010 23:34:07 UTC