- From: Kelly <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 03:26:02 -0400
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
On Monday, April 02, 2007 2:30 am Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > The statement "XHTML 1.1 documents SHOULD be labeled with the Internet > Media Type text/html as defined in [RFC2854] or application/xhtml+xml as > defined in [RFC3236]." is apparently meant to change the policy. > Previously, application/xhtml+xml was clearly favored for XHTML, although > text/html was allowed for specific purposes (and it is hard to see how > XHTML 1.1 documents could fit into this, especially since XHTML 1.1 has > nothing resembling appendix C of XHTML 1.0). Now both are mentioned with > no expressed preference, and text/html is mentioned first! > > Formally there is no problem in referring, in a draft for a _normative_ > document, to an _informative_ document that contradicts the normative > document in some way, or at least has a different tone of voice. Note that > the reference says: "For further information on using media types with > XHTML, see the informative note [XHTMLMIME]." It's an _informative_ > (non-normative) reference if I ever saw one. I bring it up because I, like others who are keeping an eye on HTML & XHTML, generally tell people that if they want to use XHTML 1.1, they should be using application/xhtml+xml, because XHTML 1.1 with text/html is technically not permitted. This is the first time I had someone counter with "Yes, W3C says to serve XHTML 1.1 with text/html!" and have that link sent as some sort of proof... I was wondering what the root cause was, since it contradicts a LOT of discussion, what people have been told for a few years, and the rest of W3C's own documents on XHTML and proper MIME types. I was especially surprised to find the "more details" document says the very opposite of the sentence I'm referring to! -- http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ - Get Firefox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ - Reclaim Your Inbox! Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 07:26:17 UTC