- From: Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:40:44 +0200
- To: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <ms-lamers@microsoft.com>, <www-html@w3.org>, <iesg@ietf.org>
Hi Bill, > -----Original Message----- > Appendix C is labeled _informative_. It "summarizes design guidelines he _knows_ it's informative, that was what he was complaining in the first place when starting this important thread ;) > P.S. Those who favor "application/xhtml+xml" need to think ahead on > the issue of how that information, which would be part of a user-owned > data structure, would survive delivery to an http server running on a > primtive platform where content types are determined by the > 1980's-style canonization of file system suffices. I disagree, read on ;) The Amiga and the Mac already had much better file type recognition techniques in the 80ies than looking at a file's name's ending, and Amiga improved them even more 1992 by their introduction of Datatypes, that recognize the file type by a file's content (similar to but more modular than UNIX's mime magic). So it is 1970's-style, WIN 2k is still much like CP/M, too much! *g* > P.P.S. Remember that the name of the W3C document type for (X)HTML > is "html". Don't confuse that with its formal public identifier or > its XML namespace. I think he won't, he's a freak; he knows HTML, XML and CSS very well, like me he's a participant in the "who finds most errors in specs"-contest ;) If he's complaining about a spec he knows why ;) There's a discrepancy about how to handle documents and mime types between: a) the specs about XML b) the specs about XHTML c) what XHTML editors said to Mozilla.org about sniffing HTML documents for determining the HTML version and basic type (SGML based or XML based) Greetings Christian
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2001 16:41:04 UTC