Re: review of content type rules by IETF/HTTP community

2007-08-21 14:21:01 +0200 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>:

> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> ...
>> Later Julian Reschke replied:
>>> I think they do.
>>> XHTML: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3236#section-2>
>>> Template: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#section-4.11>
>> 
>> One of Karl points was probably that one actually recommend several 
>> extensions for (in this case) XHTML. By recommending only .XHTML, 
>> XHTML-files would in most cases automatically be served as 
>> 'application/xhtml+xml', and thus authors/users would experience the 
>> effects of XHTML.
> 
> RFC3236 mentions XHTML, XHT and HTML.

Like I said.

> Apache 2.2.x comes with a preconfigured mapping file (mime.types) 
> which has
> 
> 	application/xhtml+xml           xhtml xht
> 
> so as far as I can tell, it already does what you're looking for (and 
> probably has for a long time).

I am aware of this. And allthough there are more web servers than 
Apache, and more browsers than Firefox, this might serve (sic) as an 
example. (By asking Ian for examples of files.XHTML being served as 
text/html, I suspect he expects to hear that there are very _few_ such 
examples. In contrast, Ian has often been keen to demonstrate that 
things doesn't work, e.g. showing how images being served as text, 
will still being treated as an image by browsers ... and other such 
things.)

The main thing that I agree very strongly with Karl in is that the 
offline and online "gap" should be bridged, and that this can happen 
through setting up clear/strict recommendations for which extensions 
to use - which all sides (authors, authoring software, browsers, 
servers) should pay attention to. This bridging should include 
official language and charset extensions, taking example from Apache, 
which also allready offer its own such extensions, and have done so 
for a very long time allready.
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 14:03:26 UTC