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

[Mark Baker <mark.baker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ned and Keith, for your comments.  I wasn't aware of this
perception.

I'll take this back to the WG ASAP.

MB

ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > > While this doesn't go into as much depth as draft-murata-xml does, the
> > > HTML WG believes, despite the DOCTYPE/xmlns/HTML-header preamble, that
> > > the bulk (i.e. body) of most XHTML documents will useful, to "some
> > > extent" (per above), to casual users.
> 
> > I think the general consensus of the MIME community is that making HTML
> > a subtype of "text/" was a mistake.  While it is possible to write HTML
> > which is readable "to some extent" as plain text, the HTML that is
> > generated by a typical MUA or HTML editor is so full of useless cruft
> > that it doesn't qualify.  Perhaps a determined human being can read the
> > text "to some extent" but the typical human gives up.
> 
> > So IMHO we should learn from this experience and make XHTML and other
> > XML-ish things subtypes of application/.
> 
> I completely agree with Keith. Text/html was a mistake.
> 
>                                 Ned