- From: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 14:55:36 +0900 (JST)
- To: www-html@w3.org
"Chris Haynes" <chris@harvington.org.uk> wrote: > The 'text/html' type does not help with version numbers, nor does the > new mime type. Actually RFC 1866 defined an optional parameter "level" for "text/html" [1], and (never-standardized) HTML 3.0 proposed the "version" parameter [2]. However, in practice those parameters were never used and dropped in RFC 2854 [3]. > Is 'application/xhtml+xml' intended to provide this distinction, The "profile" optional parameter is intended to provide a *short-term* solution to negotiate for a variety of XHTML- based languages. > or is > there anything else in the W3C recommendations which would serve this > purpose? > > Has there been any consideration given to indicating agent capability > at the major/minor version level? CC/PP (Composite Capabilities/Preference Profiles) [4] is designed to describe user agent capabilities and preferences. Examples in the spec include a profile component "htmlVersionsSupported" to indicate versions of (X)HTML supported by a user agent. WAP User Agent Profile (UAProf) specification [5] is based on CC/PP and it defines "HtmlVersion" for that purpose. [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_4#SEC4.1 [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/HTMLandMIME [3] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/ [5] Available from: http://www.wapforum.org/what/technical.htm Regards, -- Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 00:56:41 UTC