- From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 23:44:01 +0900
- To: hammond@csc.albany.edu
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
"William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu> wrote: > BTW why didn't the Baker draft propose text/xhtml+xml or perhaps > propose both text/xhtml+xml and application/xhtml+xml ? Given the > nature of XHTML it seems to me that text/xhtml+xml would be more > consistent with the distinction made between text/xml and > application/xml in RFC 3023 (Murata, St.Laurent, Kohn: XML Media > Types). Because originally the HTML WG proposed "text/xhtml+xml" but got a number of strong objections to use text/* subtype on the ietf-xml-mime mailing list, so we changed our proposal to use "application/xhtml+xml" instead. See the "text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml" thread on ietf-xml-mime starting from: http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/msg00612.html Regards, -- Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Monday, 4 June 2001 10:43:39 UTC