- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:52:17 -0500
- To: "public-xml-core-wg" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
Although this email requests action by the XML CG, if any XML Core members have useful input, I'm sure that would be welcome. paul -----Original Message----- From: w3c-xml-cg-request@w3.org On Behalf Of Chris Lilley Sent: Friday, 2007 February 16 07:47 To: XML CG Cc: Hypertext CG Subject: Agenda: HTML media type Hello XML CG I have an action item from the Hypertext CG to alert you to a change in the use of the HTML media type, where this CG might have an opinion. Currently the media types are: HTML 2, 3.2, 4.x text/html XHTML 1.0 may be sent as text/html or as application/xhtml+xml XHTML 1.1, XHTML 2.0 application/xhtml+xml (must NOT be sent as text/html) An issue is that applications that don't accept XHTML will not do anything sensible with such data (notably MS IE, including IE7, which will offer to save to disk). Other browsers (Opera, Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, plus mobile browsers such as ACCESS NetFront, Webkit S60, Obigo, Opera) accept application/xhtml+xml. The "won't work in IE" problem has resulted in a lack of use of XHTML, particularly XHTML 1.1. Unless authors have control over their servers and are savvy enough to send as application/xhtml+xml to most browsers and text/html (possibly with Ruby removal) to IE. It also means some conversion of XHTML 1.1 to 1.0 (this happens on the W3C site, because pubrules requires a text/html version of all TRs as the normative version). The HTML WG proposes to change things by allowing XHTML 1.1 to be served as text/html. This might have a benefit (IE will at least treat it as tagsoup, perhaps as 'standards' rather than 'quirks' tagsoup) It might have drawbacks: * previously, one could guarantee that XHTML would be processed as XML, have an XML DOM, reliable and browser-independent parsing, etc. * people might start serving content which was XHTML as text/html, thus (as the document changes over time) no longer being informed by browsers of such minor flaws as WF errors. * tools that extract and process content (aggregators, etc) may not process such content as it is not labelled as being XML. Please add this to the agenda of the next XML CG call. Your comments would be appreciated. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 16 February 2007 14:52:38 UTC