- From: <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:18:36 +0100
- To: w3c-html-wg@w3.org
- Cc: voyager-issues@mn.aptest.com
From the new working draft of XHTML 1.1:
> XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled withthe Internet Media Type
> text/html as defined
> in [RFC2854]
Which says:
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.
... making no mention of XHTML 1.1.
> or application/xhtml+xml as definedin [RFC3236]. For further information
> on using
> media types with XHTML, see the informative
> note [XHTMLMIME].
Which says:
In general, this media type is NOT suitable for
XHTML.
and
The use of 'text/html' for XHTML SHOULD be limited
for the purpose of rendering on existing HTML user
agents, and SHOULD be limited to [XHTML1] documents
which follow the HTML Compatibility Guidelines.
and to paraphrase the summary tables:
XHTML 1.1 SHOULD NOT be served as text/html
Additionally, as far as I know, nothing added in XHTML 1.1 (i.e. Ruby
annotation) is supported by legacy user agents. So there seems little
point in allowing it to be served as text/html.
I propose the following change:
XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet Media Type
application/xhtml+xml as defined in [RFC3236]. They SHOULD NOT be labeled
with the Internet Media Type text/html as defined in [RFC2854]. For
further information on using media types with XHTML, see the informative
note [XHTMLMIME].
--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:34:06 UTC