- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 01:04:05 -0800
- To: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "Laurens Holst" <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > > 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. In mozilla it gives different results if you serve usng application/xml, application/svg+xml or application/xhtml+xml. We create different types of Document nodes depending on what mimetype is used. So an SVG document, or plain XML document, won't have .cookies or .body for example. If this is ideal or not can of course be debated. I know Hixie has been advocating only having a single type of Document object, ever. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 09:04:46 UTC