Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Wed, 18 October 2000 21:22 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28393 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (ASTRO.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.93.168]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28383 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19225; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:26:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200010182126.RAA19225@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
cc: Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:53:44 EDT." <39EDF1B8.FF4EEED4@canada.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:26:51 -0400
Sender: owner-ietf-xml-mime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
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>
> 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/. Keith
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml ned.freed
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml John Cowan
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml John Cowan
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml John Cowan
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml ned.freed
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml ned.freed
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml ned.freed
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Dan Kohn
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Mark Baker
- Re: XHTML vs HTML media types Mark Baker
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Martin J. Duerst
- RE: XHTML vs HTML media types ned.freed
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml ned.freed
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Keith Moore
- RE: XHTML vs HTML media types Larry Masinter
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Dan Kohn
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Simon St.Laurent
- XHTML vs HTML media types Mark Baker
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Mark Baker
- text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Dan Kohn
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Mark Baker
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Keith Moore
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Dave Peterson
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Rick Jelliffe
- Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml John Cowan
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Rick Jelliffe
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Simon St.Laurent
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Rick Jelliffe
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Dan Kohn
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Dan Kohn
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Rick Jelliffe
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml ned.freed
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Simon St.Laurent
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml ned.freed
- RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml Gavin Thomas Nicol