Hello Tim,
Per our chat during WWW2002, I'm sending this message here to explain
the background of the XHTML Media Types Note [1].
As you argued, the correct handling of media types is crucial to
the successful implementation of XHTML. I completely agree, and
that's why the HTML WG published the XHTML Media Types Note to
clarify the issues.
At the moment this Note only says 'application/xml' and 'text/xml'
MAY be used to serve XHTML documents. It would sound too weak, but
the HTML WG thought that they are not the right group to define
the processing when generic XML media types are used, and that should
be resolved by the TAG. The "Status of This Document" section states
as follows:
This document does not address general issues on media types and
namespaces, which is outside the scope of the HTML Working Group
charter and will be dealt by the Technical Architecture Group (TAG).
So if the TAG resolves the issue, in particular mixedNamespaceMeaning-13 [2],
we are very happy to update the Note to reflect that resolution. IMHO,
should there be a Recommendation track document on this issue, it should
solve the XML-wide problem, not just for XHTML.
For your information, here's my personal XHTML test cases w.r.t.
media types:
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/
and its results:
http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/media-types/results
At the moment not all browsers behave as we expected, but the TAG's
resolution would help them to do the right thing.
Thanks,
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020430
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#mixedNamespaceMeaning-13
--
Masayasu Ishikawa / mimasa@w3.org
W3C - World Wide Web Consortium
HTML Activity Lead, Team contact for the HTML WG
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2002 22:40:37 UTC
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4