- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 18:27:53 -0000
- To: www-html@w3.org
"Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote in message news:022801c3a165$85d89b80$df13fea9@srx41p... > Appendix C basically points out that there is a class of XHTML1 documents > that can be delivered successfully to legacy browsers, The normative 5.1 states: | HTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in | Appendix C, "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be | labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854] This normative part requires that documents served as text/html must "follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C". If this incorrect this needs clarifying. > for instance using content negotiation. I don't understand this, if you're using content-negotiation it would be trivial to serve appropiate versions of the document. > Which outstanding issues are those? XHTML-1.0/6232 for example. > XHTML1 is an XML application, and that is its only intended use. The correct > media type for it is application/xhtml+xml (though there is nothing in > RFC3023 (for XML Media types) that makes it illegal to serve it as text/xml > or application/xml, which indeed some browsers do accept.) If this is the case then correcting 5.1 of XHTML 1 to state this would be seem to relevant, as that is not what 5.1 says, as it says they may be labelled at "text/html" and may also be labelled as "application/xhtml+xml"
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 13:29:00 UTC