- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:27:10 -0800
- To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
- CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
> 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. RFC 3023 defers any rules for how application/xml should be processed to the rec-XML which defines the media type. It doesn't mandate that an "XHTML" document should be processed as XHTML and doesn't disallow it. It would be appropriate for W3C to either update rec-XML or else to create a new document, mandating the behavior of agents which receive application/xml. If a new document, then it would be reasonable to issue an update to RFC 3023 which points the application/xml registration to the new document. The IETF explicitly defers to W3C to define these things. There's no point in trying to read between the lines; if the W3C thinks IETF documents are ambiguous, fix them! Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2009 16:27:54 UTC