- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 14:52:57 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
- To: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>
- cc: <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, <mozilla-mathml@mozilla.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Robert Miner wrote: > > If not, you need to give me some sign that you actually understand the > issues at stake. From what you write, you give the clear impression > that you don't think either of the following issues are important: > > 1) For some time to come, most web authors will be preparing content > that will be read predominantly with older user agents, and > therefore need to send documents as text/html. > > 2) For some time to come, many web authors will end up sending XHTML > as text/html due to circumstances beyond their control, even if > they are willing to send it as text/xml. I acknowledge those points completely. Neither of these points require any documents sent as text/html to be handled as text/xml by any browser. > If you do acknowledge those points, then you don't need me to point > out why your analogy with PNGs is not very relevant. My analogy with PNGs is merely to highlight that content type sniffing is fundamentally flawed. -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL Invited Expert, CSS Working Group /. `- ' ( `--' The views expressed in this message are strictly `- , ) - > ) \ personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 17:51:47 UTC