- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 05:26:02 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
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 Some documents of the XHTML2 WG was rescinded last year.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 aims for permission to be served as text/html: It was there, in the rescinded version.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