- 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