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

Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG



>I don't understand why they were using text/xml in the first place.  First
>of all, XHTML is still HTML, and there is a well-defined media type for it:
>text/html.  But more importantly, XHTML is largely an exercise in
>pragmatism; it's intended to work in older browsers (cf. <br /> syntax) -
>text/html will work in older browsers, while text/xml won't.  Is this a
>hard decision?

No, but it's a lot worse (potentially) than just "won't work".
If XHTML 1.0 is commonly delivered as */xml now, then future
processors might very well be expected to understand, for
example, <img src=""> even though that syntax would be
deprecated in a future version of XML that included XLink.

Not that this problem is insurmountable, but it probably is
likely premature to allow it now before we consider the
possible consequences.

MB
--
Mark Baker                     Personal Apps Lead, Sun Microsystems
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA   http://java.sun.com/products/personalapps