Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM> Thu, 19 October 2000 14:30 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25590 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25586 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fastrack.Canada.Sun.COM ([129.155.3.10]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29700; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from canada.sun.com (seteo [129.155.190.61]) by fastrack.Canada.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v1.7) with ESMTP id KAA06336; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:32:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39EF0645.D181EDEB@canada.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:33:41 -0400
From: Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ned.freed@INNOSOFT.COM
CC: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
References: <39EDF1B8.FF4EEED4@canada.sun.com> <01JVHM2XD46K00056I@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Thanks Ned and Keith, for your comments. I wasn't aware of this perception. I'll take this back to the WG ASAP. MB ned.freed@innosoft.com wrote: > > > > 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