- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 15:31:28 -0500
- To: James Pickering <jp29@cox.net>
- CC: "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
The XHTML 2 Working Group is updating the XHTMLMIME document to reflect current best practices ala the ancient Appendix C to which you refer. The working group definitely recommends doing the type of content negotiation you are attempting to do. You can see all XHTML 2 Working group documents under development, including a draft that is unapproved and still needs lots of work at http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts James Pickering wrote: > I have been testing serving XHTML+RDFa documents via Content Negotiation in order to render them as content (MIME) type application/xhtml+xml to XML compliant Browsers and as content (MIME) type text/html to MSIE Browsers. > > However, there is no "Appendix C" provision (ala XHTML 1.0) in the "RDFa in XHTML Syntax and Processing Working Draft" -- to permit serving XHTML+RDFa documents as content (MIME) type text/html -- to do so produces the W3C Markup Validator notation: > > "Warning Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type > > The document is being served with the text/html Mime Type which is not a > registered media type for the XHTML + RDFa Document Type. The recommended media type for this document is: application/xhtml+xml" > > I note that the W3C is currently serving some of their XHTML+RDFa documents as Content-Type text/html? > > My test document is at: http://jp29.org/rdfaprimerx.php > > James Pickering > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 20:32:11 UTC