RE: Promotion of XHTML

Pete,
 
I looking at it myself (I didn't before) I would say that you are
correct.  While the registry setting I mentioned previously will resolve
some issues; the best thing to do is to either use an ActiveX control in
the browser to display the multiple namespaces until Microsoft makes it
embedded within their browser, or use XML files and XSL style sheets to
transform for the IE browser the look of the XHTML document.
 
With this though, I do not believe scripting will work, but I have not
exercised this option yet.  Anyway, promotion and proliferation is
something that needs to get out to the masses more.  While we are
pressing ahead with XHTML1.1 and XHTML2.0 and XForms and XLink and so
on, everyone is still learning the mixture of old HTML3.2 and HTML4.0. 
Lots of bad coding still going on. And until that is fixed, we will
continue to fight an uphill battle. I will say this though, tool makers
are getting better, but still have a long way to go.
 
Anyway, that's my 2 cents..
 
Sincerely,
 
Richard K. Norman II
Web/Application Developer
Saint Agnes Medical Center
 
Email: Richard.Norman@samc.com

-----Original Message-----
From: "Peter Foti (PeterF)" <PeterF@SystolicNetworks.com> 
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 9:47 AM
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Promotion of XHTML




Jonas, in the summary of that page it says: 

'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents 

and: 

the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to HTML_compatible XHTML 1.0 
documents 

Which leads me to believe that text/html is correct for XHTML documents
when 
used as HTML for web sites.  Especially after reading paragraph 2 of
section 
3.1: 

[XHTML1], Appendix C "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" summarizes design 
guidelines for authors who wish their XHTML documents to render on
existing 
HTML user agents. 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. In 
particular, 'text/html' is NOT suitable for XHTML Family document types
that 
adds elements and attributes from foreign namespaces, such as
XHTML+MathML 
[XHTML+MathML]. 

The important thing to note is that (in this thread) we are talking
about 
XHTML as an HTML standard, nothing more.  Which means a solution that is

compatible with existing HTML user agents.  We're not talking about
adding 
MathML or any other XML application into the mix.  This is purely HTML. 
So 
based on what I've read in the W3 documents, I think text/html is
perfectly 
fine. 

Pete 


_____Original Message_____ 
From: www_html_request@w3.org [ HYPERLINK
"mailto:www_html_request@w3.org"mailto:www_html_request@w3.org]On Behalf

Of Jonas Jørgensen 
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 9:50 AM 
To: www_html@w3.org 
Subject: Re: Promotion of XHTML 



Peter Foti (PeterF) wrote: 
> How else should it be served?  It *is* text, and it *is* html. 

As application/xhtml+xml. See < HYPERLINK
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml_media_types/"
\nhttp://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml_media_types/>. 

/Jonas 



--- 
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. 
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( HYPERLINK "http://www.grisoft.com"
\nhttp://www.grisoft.com). 
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002 
  


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
 

**************************************************************************************************
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
It is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or  the 
sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any one or make copies.

**************************************************************************************************

Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 15:32:01 UTC