- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:11:38 +0100
- To: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:53:22 +0100, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote: > Moi? a personal political agenda to rid the word of > application/xhtml+xml? never! :P > > Seriously speaking, the list of types is supposed to reflect what the > working group believes are the core development technologies that > underpin widgets (for version 1.0, at least). I personally don't have > an issue with including application/xhtml+xml, but I think it is > unfair to require implementations to support it. Also, having optional > supported types introduces fragmentation. However, we could add > application/xhtml+xml and say that if the implementation does not > handle xhtml, then it may treat it as text/html... but that is > probably just asking for problems(?). I'd prefer if they treated it as application/xml instead. In fact, authors who want to use XHTML (or SVG, etc) in widgets could just use the .xml extension and it would work. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 06:12:21 UTC