- From: Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:20:09 +0200
- To: <www-validator@w3.org>
Shane P. McCarron:
> (Speaking as an editor of the XHTML specifications)
> There is no defined extension for XHTML. XHTML is an XML grammar, so it
> is appropriate to use the suffix .xml if you are serving it as media
> type text/xml. However, as most people continue to server XHTML as
> media type text/html, you should continue to use the suffix .html.
As far as I know there is no defined extension for HTML (irrespective
of version number). Extensions should be completely irrelevant when
files are served through http. There is no difference between HTML
and XHTML here, as far as I know.
An XHTML document might very well be served through an address using
an "asp" extension, or an "cgi" extension, etc.
#####################################################################
Bertilo Wennergren
<http://purl.oclc.org/net/bertilo>
<bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
#####################################################################
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 15:19:42 UTC