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

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> +1 for making serving XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml a MUST. In the
> current XML-hostile climate, I would see no harm in W3C also defining an
> text/html serialization of XHTML 1.1, especially in order to backport
> accessibility features (HTML 4.02 would be an equally good name for
> this). But please end the twilight zone non-transitional transition of
> XHTML 1.0 as text/html.
>   
I am sympathetic to the idea of a text/html serialization... but we got 
slapped pretty hard for doing that in XHTML 1.0.  Basically, such a 
"serialization" ends up being a series of conventions that, if adhered 
to, will permit well formed, valid XHTML 1.1 content to sort of work in 
legacy user agents.  Is that what you are looking for?  Or did you have 
something else in mind?

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com