Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.org> wrote: >Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> wrote: > >> Just for the record: >> >> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce/Current/msg15878.html >> >> says that application/xhtml+xml has been approved as an informal RFC >> by the IESG. So I don't see any big reason to wait to implement that >> in the validator. > >Just for the record, now that it has been published as RFC 3236, so >I see no reason to wait to implement that in the validator. > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt # This document only registers a new MIME media type, # 'application/xhtml+xml'. It does not define anything more than is # required to perform this registration. This is not progress; this is status quo. The first I-D said as much. Is there reason to believe I will find something more substantive later in that document when I find the time to read the rest of it?Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 21:46:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:58:26 UTC