[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: Fw: XHTML 1.0 returned to HTML WG
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> 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
I do not think that we need more specialized media types for HTML. text/html,
text/xml, application/xml are good eonugh.
text/xhtml was discussed in this ML, and it was discussed heavily in the
HTML WG. In my understanding, there is a consensus that a new specilized
media type for HTML does not solve any problems. If we need something that works on
existing browsers, we only have to use text/html. If we need something that
allows addition of other vocabularies (e.g., MathML and RDF), we already have
text/xml and application/xml.
Murray Altheim wrote:
> In thinking about this more, I can see the value in defining a new
> media type 'text/xhtml' for the family iff we see that all applications
> within that space using the same infrastructure and mechanisms for
> extensibility, so that any application within that space can predict
> how to read what has been extended and the implications of the
> extension. We *may* be able to solve that with document profiles.
> But if it's still open season within 'text/xhtml' then we've only put
> off the problem until later, and also compounded it by meaninglessly
> fragmented the 'text/xml' space. If there is a solution for XML it
> should be the same as for XHTML, and so my sense is that either the
> HTML WG's concept of document profiles is more usable generally in
> XML or we're duplicating what must also be done for XML.
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
Tel: +81-44-812-7230 Fax: +81-44-812-7231