- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:12:27 +0200
- To: "William F Hammond" <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, whatwg@whatwg.org, public-html@w3.org, www-math@w3.org, www-svg@w3.org
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:36:49 +0200, William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu> wrote: > About 7 years ago there was argument in these circles about whether > correct xhtml+mathml could be served as text/html. > > As we all know, a clear boundary was drawn, presumably because it > was onerous for browsers to "sniff" incoming content and then decide > how to parse. Actually, it was not the browsers: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0024.html > As things have evolved, we now know that browsers do, in fact, perform > a lot of triage. See, for example, "Mozilla's DOCTYPE sniffing", > http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla's_DOCTYPE_sniffing That's a very limited set of differences which mostly affect page layout. > Especially since we are speaking about dual serialization of the same > DOM and since there is relatively little use of > "application/xhtml+xml" (and some significant user agents do not > support it), might it not be worthwhile to re-examine the question of > serving standards-compliant xhtml or xhtml+(mathml|svg) serialized > document instances as either "text/html" or "application/xhtml+xml"? > > In other words, why not be able to serve both serializations > as "text/html"? > > What obstacles to this exist? The Web. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 17:12:46 UTC