- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:46:59 -0600
- To: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
- CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote: > My concern is with the mention of the application/xml media type > there, which I feel inappropriate because RFC 3023 doesn't license, > for example, that an XHTML document delivered as application/xml is > intended to evoke XHTML semantics. I agree with this concern. We have actually removed application/xml from recent drafts of the XHTML Media Types document [1] because we feel discussing it as a viable XHTML media type is misleading - in particular because the follow-your-nose story for it is muddled. [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Drafts#xhtml-media-types -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 16 January 2009 20:47:41 UTC