|
|
Posted by Spartanicus on 08/01/05 01:37
Toby Inkster <usenet200507@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
>> Apart from XHTML generally being a poor choice over HTML, serving XHTML
>> 1.1 as text/html violates w3c guidelines, the exemption that XHTML that
>> conforms to appendix C guidelines may be served as text/html only
>> applies to XHTML 1.0, *not* XHTML 1.1.
>
>I think this "rule" about not serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html is blown out
>of proportion by a lot of people.
You're welcome to argue with w3c that you don't agree with their
guidelines.
>It is mentioned in this document http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
>but the document only has a status of a "Note" -- not a Standard, nor even
>a Recommendation.
Which is why I said "w3c guidelines". Afaik content types and their use
are not and never have been formalized in a normative specification.
IIRC content types used to be "registered" by iana, but afaik that's no
longer the case. W3c has no authority to declare any content type a
"must". These matters are therefore contained in a non normative note. I
see no justification for ignoring it.
--
Spartanicus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|