W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

(unknown charset) Re: Re-registration of text/html

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:26:02 +0100
To: (unknown charset) Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: (unknown charset) Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100311052602050966.3d71268e@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Leif Halvard Silli, Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:08:08 +0100:
> Sam Ruby, Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:29:06 -0500:
>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

[...]

> And, besides, this group has the change 

s/change/chance 

> to specify Ruby in HTML5 to be 
> identical with Ruby in XHTML 1.1.

[...]

>> Choosing a different MIME type has a very real consequence in each of 
>> these five consumers.
> 
> Some documents of the XHTML2 WG was rescinded last year. [...]

My point with saying this is that it is actually "old news" that XHTML 
1.1. aims for permission to be served as text/html: It was there, in 
the rescinded version.

And, btw, the permission to serve XHTML 1.1. is already issued! [1][2] 
For a small overview, see Wikipedia. [3]

The new thing that the planned PER of XHTML 1.1. aims for is just 
_more_ compatibility with "the Web". By allowing the @lang attribute. 
(And some other things - ask the XHTML2 working group!) In other words: 
So that it becomes possible to serve the same XHTML 1.1. document both 
as text/html and as application/xhtml+xml, with the same semantics.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/#text-html
[2] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/#compatGuidelines
[3] 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML#XHTML_1.1.E2.80.94Module-based_XHTML

[...]
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 04:26:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC