- From: Herr Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:10:17 +0200
- To: "William F. Hammond" <hammond@math.albany.edu>, William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- Cc: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>, www-html@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Bill, Am Freitag, 11. April 2003 14:55 schrieb William F Hammond: > Read RFC 2854 carefully: > : 2. Registration of MIME media type text/html > : ... > : Published specification: > : The text/html media type is now defined by W3C Recommendations; > : the latest published version is [HTML401]. 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. > : ... > > It states that the definition of the type "text/html" is to be found > in W3C recommendations. (RFC 3236 simply registers the type > "application/xhtml+xml".) Thank you for pointing this out. I read this but I really missed what it means "...is to be found in W3C recommendations". > Do current W3C recommendations cover the > mime field well? Undecided. I think some of the WG aren't aware of the MIME problems. That's no accuse because they have an excuse - they have more important things todo. > > I think it makes life a lot easier when application/xhtml+xml is > > used, since neither updates to existing RFCs nor new RFCs would be > > required. > > "application/xhtml+xml" is of limited usefulness while IE does not > support it. (Does IE want to think about Gecko?) That aside, it > could be useful in the future as the content type for XML documents > whose root namespace is some version of html. That's true and untrue. You can't send XHTML using XML features as text/html to IE because it also doesn't support that. (No browser supports it, I think). But application/xhtml+xml is of use when you want to use content negotiation. Send XHTML with MIME Type application/xhtml+xml to user agents explicitely accepting application/xhtml+xml such as Gecko, while others will be served HTML with MIME Type text/html. > Furthermore, W3C could at some point take the position that > "text/html" may be used for XHTML under conditions that extend the > condition cited in RFC 2854. For that what might make sense is XHTML > documents residing in the root namespace of html extended by a limited > set of common additional namespaces such as mathml, ruby, and svg. > That is, the difference between "text/html" and > "application/xhtml+xml" would then be that the former consists of > documents strictly under a common list of element types for which all > user agents have native knowledge and provide default rendering, while > the latter require a user agent that must be able to handle "unknown" > element types using presentation style (CSS or XSL-FO). Well, I don't think this makes sense, because it would completely break compatibility. Imagine sending XHTML 1.1 using External Parsed Entities and delivering it as text/html to any of the current UA's. Bye - -- ITCQIS GmbH Christian Wolfgang Hujer Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter Telefon: +49 (0)89 27 37 04 37 Telefax: +49 (0)89 27 37 04 39 E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+lr66zu6h7O/MKZkRAgM/AKDK0+dRa2LAB5lDt4QVmMzlNfd10wCdEcPJ cxYeVypuiNh/FVsGI1jyfw0= =JrQr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 09:12:20 UTC