Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
ned.freed@INNOSOFT.COM Wed, 18 October 2000 23:19 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA00579 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [209.55.107.55]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00574 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned.freed@INNOSOFT.COM
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01JVHCBYPH8000056I@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-xml-mime@imc.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:23:25 -0700
Subject: Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:26:51 -0400" <200010182126.RAA19225@astro.cs.utk.edu>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Cc: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>, Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Message-id: <01JVHM2XD46K00056I@mauve.mrochek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <39EDF1B8.FF4EEED4@canada.sun.com>
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/. I completely agree with Keith. Text/html was a mistake. Ned
- 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