- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 15:23:53 +0100
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:17:38 -0400, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: > Jim Ley wrote: > > An XHTML document would therefore not be able to be served as > > text/html, can you just clarify that this is deliberately meant to > > prevent the XHTML as Appendix C carrying on - and XHTML WF documents > > will be served as text/html would be a violation of the spec. > > I think what Ian is saying here is that he is that the new text > refers to XML that uses the XHTML namespace, > rather than XHTML specifically. So XHTML is not an XML document? > > If this is the case, why do we have XHTML version of the spec? > > I don't see the logic in your reasoning. We should drop XHTML > because Ian doesn't like it being used in the HTML MIME type? No, because WF2 is only relevant to legacy clients, and legacy clients mostly only support text/html. Jim.
Received on Friday, 9 July 2004 07:23:53 UTC