- From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:44:34 +0100
Jim Ley writes: >> >> And no, you can't send an XForms document as text/html, because it's >> >> neither valid HTML nor XHTML Appendix C-compliant. >> > There's no requirement that text/html be either of those things, to be >> > served. >> Yes, there is. RFC 2854 [1] defines the valid contents for text/html >> data as either HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 complying with Appendix C. > > No it does not (any HTML formats including tag-soup is allowable) Where does it say that in RFC2854? "Published specification: The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations; the latest published version is [HTML401]. In addition, [XHTML1] defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html." That seems to me to be a fair argument that text/html has to either conform to the HTML4 or XHTML 1.0-appendix-C specs. > and > if it does, then the WF2 couldn't be served as text/html either unless > it went to the W3C who have change control over it chose to change the > registration. Agreed. Actually, to whomever has control of the text/html MIME type - I'm not sure if that's actually the W3C or IETF. Perhaps IETF with W3C's agreement. >> [text/html interpretted as something else] > So it must not be interpreted as a Web Forms 2 document either then. Agreed. There are, of course, exceptions for stuff that's in development, otherwise you'd never be able to develop anything :) But yes, generally, I agree. We need to submit this to a standards organisation after we've got a stable spec, and after we've got two interoperable implementations. Regards, Malcolm
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 09:44:34 UTC