- From: Shane P. McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:48:12 -0500
- To: Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@hem.passagen.se>
- CC: www-validator@w3.org
Bertilo Wennergren wrote: > 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. Of course. My point was really that the media type for XHTML files should continue to be text/html, and the way to ensure that this is mapped correctly in most HTTP servers is to use the suffix .html. Sorry for the confusion. -- Shane P. McCarron phone: +1 763 786-8160 ApTest fax: +1 763 786-8180 mobile: +1 612 799-6942 e-mail: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 15:48:19 UTC