- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 21:58:06 +0900
- To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>, Simon Hill <red_one@othersdietrying.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>
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. Regards, Martin. At 11:05 02/01/14 +0000, Lloyd Wood wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Lloyd Wood wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2002, Simon Hill wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2002-01-14 at 04:03, Lloyd Wood wrote: > > > > > > > > Individual draft. If it was adopted by an IETF WG it might be more > > > > convincing as something to start work towards... > > > > > > > > But really, RFC3023 already puts the +xml suffix convention on the > > > > standards track; that is more than enough to go on, given that > > > > application/xhtml is already supported. > > > > > > so as far as the IETF is concerned, what's the mime type for XHTML? > > > > I'd guess application/html, based on RFC 2584. > >gah! text/html... > >sorry, > >L. > ><L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 08:05:28 UTC