- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 17:23:21 -0400 (EDT)
- To: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham)
- Cc: andrewl@microsoft.com (Andrew Layman), xml-dist-app@w3.org, dave@scripting.com
> I'd reiterate that other W3C XML-based formats have chosen to define > their own content-type. Perhaps we should explore the reasoning of > those groups (SVG and SMIL, to start with). FWIW, XHTML 1.0 was held up for quite a while because of two issues; one, the "three namespaces vs. one" debate, and the other, that XHTML should not be sent as text/xml or application/xml[1]. The concern expressed by Sun and others was that because XML namespaces weren't well deployed (though that was in late '99), "img", "h1", and other well known HTML elements (or perhaps all of HTML) would somehow find special status in a "root namespace" such that they would be usable as-is in other XML formats that didn't use namespaces. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-xhtml1-19990824/#media MB
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 17:21:48 UTC