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

[MURATA Makoto <murata.makoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata.makoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx