- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 16:01:57 +0200
- To: Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
* Masayasu Ishikawa wrote: >As I noted in earlier message, neither new media type nor optional >parameter can address how to deal with hybrid XML document well. Indeed, but using the XHTML 1.0 media type for incompatible XHTML 2.0 documents could be a major hindrance to early adopters of XHTML 2.0, since it would be rather hard if not impossible to determine whether the user agent supports XHTML 2.0 on the server side. Even if there were a profile parameter for XHTML 2.0, it's IMO unlikely that user agents will pass that to the server and parameters typically don't fit well into existing means for server configuration and content negotiation. Enthusiasts would either need to determine XHTML support based on the nowadays often suppressed user agent HTTP header or find equally bad workarounds or stick to XHTML 1.x. Without authors using XHTML 2.0, browser developers will probably consider XHTML 2.0 support less important, it'd take more time to find bugs in the implementation, etc. Hence I think there should be a MIME type designating XHTML 2.0 Family document types. application/xhtml+xml might also be used for XHTML 2.0 documents, but there should be a seperate one and conforming user agents should be required to support both. This wouldn't do any harm and give a lot of benefit to XHTML 2.0 authors.
Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 10:02:12 UTC