- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:17:16 -0600
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > # XHTML must be served with an XML MIME type, such as application/ > xml or application/xhtml+xml. > > I think this would be better phrased as implementation advice > rather than conformance criteria. There needs to be ONE > document that REGISTERS application/xhtml+xml, and I don't think > this document intends to be that. > > And application/xml already has a definition, and I don't think > you're intending to update that -- or are you? > > I'm less certain about the normative language around file > extensions, but I think it > is also likely to be inappropriate to give normative language for > what file > extensions MUST be used. The important part of the requirements here is that XHTML MUST NOT be served as text/html. HTML5 does intend to be the one document that registers text/html, and will not allow XHTML to be served as text/ html -- although XHTML that happens to also be a valid HTML document can be. As far as I can tell the requirement above doesn't really affect the existing registrations of application/xml or application/ xhtml+xml - they say what may be served with those MIME types, and XHTML5 certainly qualifies. But perhaps a different fruitful way to think of this is to make it definitional, rather than a matter of conformance requirement. A resources served as text/html *is* (possibly invalid) HTML, and *is not* XHTML. The purpose of this language is to clarify that the difference between HTML and XHTML, in the Web context, is determined by the MIME type, and not by particular DTD declarations or certain uses of slashes, or whatever other things people may mistakenly think makes a document XHTML. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 04:18:14 UTC