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

Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml

To: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Baker <mark.baker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
From: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:49:04 +0900
Cc: Dan Kohn <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf-xml-mime@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-mime/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-xml-mime.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-xml-mime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <Your message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:53:44 EDT." <>
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-mime@xxxxxxxxxxxx

At 00/10/18 17:26 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:

So IMHO we should learn from this experience and make XHTML and other
XML-ish things subtypes of application/.

Or of course image/ for things such as SVG.

Regards, Martin.

References:
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
  - From: Mark Baker
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
  - From: Keith Moore

Prev by Date: RE: XHTML vs HTML media types
Next by Date: Re: XHTML vs HTML media types
Previous by thread: Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
Next by thread: RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread