- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:33:35 -0500
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- CC: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
The resolution of the working group was that we needed to continue to say that XHTML-M12N based markup languages, including XHTML 1.1, SHOULD be served as application/xhtml+xml - we do not prohibit their being served other ways. There was a discussion at the f2f in Cannes about changing this to text/html, and a draft was produced that said that. However, there were many strong objections to it and the working group instructed me to change it back. I am sure I could find the references, but its like 5 AM here and I am not at the top of my game. Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Shane, > > My memory of this discussion is that we came down the other. :) I.e., > we decided _against_ the enforcement of a media type of > 'application/xhtml+xml', and supported allowing people to use > 'text/html'. > > In my view there is little to gain from insisting on an XML media type > for XHTML. MIME types have been increasingly hijacked over the years > to designate a preferred processing application, rather than a > document type. This isn't likely to change any time soon, so we might > as well live with it. In which case it would be far better to leave > the 'processing application' designation as 'an HTML or XHTML > renderer' (i.e., as 'text/html'), and leave it up to authors and > publishing systems to indicate the _document type_ through other > mechanisms (such as DOCTYPE, @xmlns, @profile, or whatever techniques > can be devised). > > Regards, > > Mark > > On 02/10/2007, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote: > >> Note that there are updated drafts of ALL XHTML Working Group specs >> available via http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts. >> >> Yes, that text has been changed. See, for example, >> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-xhtml11-20070416/conformance.html#strict >> >> >> >> olivier Thereaux wrote: >> >>> (apologies, had originally mailed the wrong list) >>> >>> Hello, XHTML WG, >>> >>> Could you tell the status of this paragraph in the XHTML 1.1 spec? The >>> latest working draft (Feb 2007... getting old) states that XHTML 1.1 >>> SHOULD be served as text/html (or app/xhtml+xml) and this is confusing >>> people. >>> >>> I think I recall a message from Shane saying this was a typo, but could >>> not find it in either www-html-editor (could only find a few reports >>> of the issue, but no answer from the WG), nor in www-html, nor in >>> www-validator where I thought this had been raised. Other echoes I got >>> seem to show this was actually on purpose. >>> >>> Is there any public record of what will happen to this statement in the >>> next draft? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> -- olivier >>> >>> ----- Forwarded message from Rado Faletic <rado.faletic@anu.edu.au> ----- >>> >>> From: Rado Faletic <rado.faletic@anu.edu.au> >>> To: www-validator@w3.org >>> X-Archived-At: >>> http://www.w3.org/mid/AB7951B9-369C-4F87-862A-95C110BE1691@anu.edu.au >>> >>> >>> note that in the XHTML1.1 working draft (16 Feb 2007) it says the >>> following: >>> XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type >>> text/html as defined in [RFC2854] or application/xhtml+xml as defined >>> in [RFC3236]. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> ----- End Forwarded Message ----- >>> >>> >> -- >> Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 >> Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 >> ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 10:33:51 UTC