text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com> Tue, 17 October 2000 17:48 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA04235 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgate-01.teledesic.com (mgate-01.teledesic.com [216.190.22.41]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04231 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mgate-01.teledesic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4GTP24CF>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:54:02 -0700
Received: by mgate-01.teledesic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4GTP24B4>; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:49:38 -0700
Message-ID: <25D0C66E6D25D311B2AC0008C7913EE001059F7B@tdmail2.teledesic.com>
From: Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>
To: mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM, xml-mime-types@imc.org
Subject: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:49:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
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>
Mark, I would appreciate if the HTML WG could provide a little more context on their thinking, perhaps by adding to discussion to the eventual XHTML MIME registration. First, I'm not convinced that text/ is the correct top-level type. Section 3 of <http://www.imc.org/draft-murata-xml> says: If an XML document -- that is, the unprocessed, source XML document -- is readable by casual users, text/xml is preferable to application/xml. MIME user agents (and web user agents) that do not have explicit support for text/xml will treat it as text/plain, for example, by displaying the XML entity as plain text. Application/xml is preferable when the XML MIME entity is unreadable by casual users. Similarly, text/xml-external-parsed-entity is preferable when an external parsed entity is readable by casual users, but application/xml-external-parsed-entity is preferable when a plain text display is inappropriate. NOTE: Users are in general not used to text containing tags such as <price>, and often find such tags quite disorienting or annoying. If one is not sure, the conservative principle would suggest using application/* instead of text/* so as not to put information in front of users that they will quite likely not understand. Using the canonical mother example, I know that my mother, who does not mind looking at <http://www.dankohn.com/>, would be upset if her mailer revealed the ugly innards: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en"> <head> <meta name="generator" content="HTML Tidy, see www.w3.org" /> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title> Dan Kohn's Home Page </title> ... It seems like application/* is thus the safer bet. Moreover, section 2.11 of <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml> already standardizes end-of-line handling, so the canonicalization of line endings that text/* supports does not seem necessary. Also, I would like to see some detailed discussion of when to use application/xhtml+xml and when to use text/html. This seems like an upward compatibility challenge of exceeding subtlety, and may deserve more attention than it received in your IRC conversation. Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide into your and the WG's thinking. - dan -- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> <http://www.dankohn.com> <tel:+1-650-327-2600>
- 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