Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
Mark Baker <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM> Mon, 06 November 2000 16:14 UTC
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14035 for ietf-xml-mime-bks; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:14:22 -0800 (PST)
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 IAA14031 for <ietf-xml-mime@imc.org>; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:14:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fastrack.Canada.Sun.COM ([129.155.1.11]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00749; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:20:51 -0800 (PST)
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 LAA28022; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:20:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3A06DAF5.BD295DF5@canada.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 11:23:17 -0500
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: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@gate.sinica.edu.tw>
CC: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Subject: Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml
References: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0011020256430.15465-100000@gate>
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>
Sorry for my tardy response ... Rick Jelliffe wrote: > Perhaps it would be better to redefine text/* to clarify that readability > by naive readers is not the defining characteristic, but that the freedom > of intermediate systems to transcode it (perhaps even at the cost of > losing characters, how awful) is. It sounds like you're suggesting that only text/* types can be transcoded. I disagree. text/* types are currently (AFAIK) the only types to be transcoded because the user agent has additional information about the encodings on these types that allow it to always access the content. While it's true that processors of application/* types don't have this additional information available to them, the use of "+xml" changes that, and allows transcoding. Note that this isn't written down anywhere. However, in considering application/xhtml+xml vs. text/xhtml+xml, I did thoroughly review the MIME RFCs and draft-murata-xml to ensure that nothing precluded application/xhtml+xml (or any application/*+xml type) described-content from being transcoded. I hope this is consistent with others' views. MB
- 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