- From: Neil Whiteley <neil.whiteley@tag2.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:55:44 +0100
- To: "'David Dorward'" <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi David, <david> What good reason is there for serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html? What advantages does it give you over Appendix C conformant XHTML 1.0 served as text/html? </david> Thanks for your comment. The answer is none. I was simply correcting a misinterpretation of the mime type requirements of XHTML 1.1 Best Regards, Neil Whiteley Tag2 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward Sent: 22 June 2005 23:45 To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: XHTML 1.1 as text/html (was Re: Should validity be P1 or P2?) On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 10:18:57PM +0100, Neil Whiteley wrote: > A lot depends on your interpretation of the document you refer to and > specifically the meaning of *SHOULD NOT* used in the summaries table. What good reason is there for serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html? What advantages does it give you over Appendix C conformant XHTML 1.0 served as text/html? -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 22:55:51 UTC