- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:20:24 -0000
- To: www-html@w3.org
"Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote in message news:43E1E547.1080204@lachy.id.au... > > 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. So the idea is that XHTML 2.0 user agents will send accept headers something like this: accept: application/xhtml+xml; q=1; profile=http://www.w3.org/2006/02/xhtml-basic, application/xhtml+xml; q=0.9; profile=http://www.w3.org/2006/02/xhtml-print, application/xhtml+xml; q=0.5; profile=http://www.w3.org/2006/02/xhtml etc.? Jim.
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 13:22:16 UTC