Re: XHTML+RDFa DTD UA support (Was: Getting the XHTML+RDFa default profile to be interesting)

Unfortunately, it is hard to be very granular about this.  Most user 
agents, including Opera, will treat content as raw XML regardless of the 
DOCTYPE if the media type is set to application/xhtml+xml (according to 
Simon from Opera, anyway).  XHTML Modularization is very clear about the 
naming scheme for XHTML family document types, and at the time we 
defined that the browser makers were in the working group and were in 
favor of using that as a trigger to put user agents into XHTML Family 
mode.  Obviously this has been overcome by events.  As a result, we feel 
it is in the best interests of the XHTML-using community that they are 
aware there is a portability risk when using application/xhtml+xml and 
XHTML family document types, and that they are aware of the ways to 
minimize those risks.  That's the purpose of the XHTML Media Types appendix.

Hope this helps.

On 08/16/2010 11:03 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Shane McCarron, Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:15:55 -0500:
>
>    
>> With regard to named entities, my recommendation, and the
>> recommendation of the XHTML 2 working group, is that people who plan
>> to serve their documents using the media type application/xhtml+xml,
>> avoid the use of named entities since many user agents do not process
>> these correctly.
>>      
> There definitely is some kind of system there. I tested all on that
> page and/or which Validator.w3.or support: new and/or
> "irrelevant/uncommon" DTDs are the ones which are not supported.
>
> Is there any reason to avoid such entities in e.g. XHTML 1.0 documents?
> Which user agents are known to not support them then? Shouldn't such
> advice be a bit more discrete?
>
>    
>>   This will be included in an upcoming update to the
>> XHTML Media Types Note.
>>
>>

Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 16:21:32 UTC