[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG

This came off XML-dev; I'm sure a lot of you have heard about it. I've cut
it down to the paragraph that's most directly relevant to MIME content
types, as it raises some important issues.

>From: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@xxxxxx>
>To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@xxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 16:33:41 -0500
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>Sender: owner-xml-dev@xxxxxxxx
>Reply-To: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@xxxxxx>
>> XHTML 1.0 is hereby sent back to the HTML working group for further work.
>>A few respondents were also concerned about the use of the text/xml
>>media type for delivering xHTML, considering this to be "premature".
>>If a document conforming to XML 1.0 and XML Namespaces is not to be
>>considered "text/xml", this raises an important issue as to what is.

I'd appreciate hearing opinions on this.  Apart from a preference for
application/xml over text/xml, the more important issue for me is whether
we should discuss 

1) transmitting entities of text/html-xml identified as text/xml
2) transmitting entities of application/html-xml identified as application/xml

Does the -xml suffix described in the I-D permit such 'fallback'?  This is
where I wish things were more hierarchically structured.  It seems clear to
me that permitting transmission of text/html as text/xml is perverse, but
the use of the suffix seems like it might justify such usage.

The namespaces issues may carry more emotional/intellectual baggage, but I
think these content-type issues need to be addressed, here as well as in
the W3C.

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies