text/xml, text/html, text/xhtml

Hello.

I am a co-author of RFC2376.  Here are my comments on "5.1 Internet Media Types".

The first para of 5.1.1 says:

>However, transmitting an XHTML document as text/xml loses information in two ways:

This is not incorrect, but probably needs clarification.  Constraints 
beyond the XHTML DTD and rendering semantics can be captured by 
XHTML applications.  Such applications do not require MIME headers. 
 
However, for MIME processors to choose such XHTML applications,  
the media type text/xml currently does nor provide sufficient information.  
(Does the same thing applies to negotiation?)  I think that this is the 
problem and it is not specific to XHTML.

Rather than introducing a new media subtype text/xhtml, 
I would propose to introduce more parameters to XML media types so that 
MIME processors can choose appropriate applications such as XHTML applications.  

Several parameters of text/xml have been proposed.  

	1) DTD URI
	2) DTD FRI
	3) namespace URI
	4) schema URI
	5) URI that identifies applications
	6) element type (in addition to some other parameter)

I personally like (5) without (6), but can be persuaded.  More about this 
issue, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-syntax-wg/1999Feb/0083.html 
and recent discussion at xml-dev.

How do you feel about such an extension?  It is probably easier to revise 
RFC2376 rather than writing another RFC for text/xhtml and registering it at IANA.

Where should we continue this discussion?  I know that there is ongoing 
discussion at xml-dev, but I prefer an archived mailing list of W3C.  A 
new public mailing list, for example xml-media-types@w3.org, might work?

Cheers,

Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp

Received on Wednesday, 3 March 1999 00:24:32 UTC