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

There are a lot of content authors out there that don't do what you say.
In the end there needs to be content creators who care about putting
closing tags in the right place and generating well formed content.
Until that time the reality of text/html needs to be present for HTML
content.

I find it funny that the "native" XHTML is supposed to be "application"
when the vast majority of web content is static text information and not
applications per se. Okay, you might be able to stretch the notion of a
<form> page being an application. Still it seems a bit funny to me to be
calling dynamic web content equal to "application". I'll get over it
though.

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly [mailto:lightsolphoenix@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 4:23 PM
To: Paul Nelson (ATC)
Cc: Jukka K. Korpela; www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: [XHTML1.1] Error in Conformance Definition document?

On Monday, April 02, 2007 3:37 am Paul Nelson (ATC) wrote:
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul

If you're using XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 1.0 in XML mode, yes.  text/html is
for 
HTML or XHTML in compatibility mode.

And if it weren't for browsers not supporting application/xhtml+xml
correctly 
(hackIEhack), this probably wouldn't matter, as the servers would be 
configured properly to begin with.

You seem to have missed that the proper MIME type of XML is
application/xml 
and that most XML MIME types are in the application section.

-- 
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 08:40:10 UTC