- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:56:07 +1100
- To: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Jim Ley wrote: > XHTML should get a diferent mime-type than application/xhtml+xml > otherwise we cannot content-negotiate it with clients that support > XHTML 1.1 but not 2.0. There is an optional profile parameter defined for application/xhtml+xml in RFC 3236. Besides stating that it accepts a URI, it's currently not defined very well except to say that it's designed for content negotiation. The example in the RFC uses the URI of the XHTML Basic DTD, although using the namespace URI, since it's different from XHTML 1.x, might be a better alternative. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 10:56:28 UTC