W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > April 2007

RE: [XHTML1.1] Error in Conformance Definition document?

From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 00:37:35 -0700
Message-ID: <49C257E2C13F584790B2E302E021B6F912E7C890@winse-msg-01.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Kelly <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
CC: <www-html@w3.org>

If you are making a simple web page do you really want the user to be
setting MIME type of "application/xhtml+xml"? It seems that "text/html"
or creating a MIME type of "text/xhtml" for well formed requirement
would be a better option. Most pages are not applications.



-----Original Message-----
From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Kelly
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:26 PM
To: Jukka K. Korpela
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: [XHTML1.1] Error in Conformance Definition document?

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
> defined in [RFC3236]." is apparently meant to change the policy.
> Previously, application/xhtml+xml was clearly favored for XHTML,
> 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
> nothing resembling appendix C of XHTML 1.0). Now both are mentioned
> no expressed preference, and text/html is mentioned first!
> Formally there is no problem in referring, in a draft for a
> document, to an _informative_ document that contradicts the normative
> document in some way, or at least has a different tone of voice. Note
> 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 &
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
not permitted.  This is the first time I had someone counter with "Yes,
says to serve XHTML 1.1 with text/html!" and have that link sent as some
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
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
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 07:36:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:02 UTC