[MACCAWS] Fwd: Re: [thelist] XHTML 1.1 and content type

We certainly should be aware of this when making any recommendations,
etc., so well answered by our own Simon:
--- Simon Willison <[email protected]> wrote:
> To: [email protected]
> From: Simon Willison <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [thelist] XHTML 1.1 and content type
> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 18:49:44 +0100
> 
> At 13:40 29/07/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> 
> >I was just reading through
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
> >
> >which currently points to
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020430
> >
> >and came across
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary-table
> >
> >That tabe indicates that XHTML 1.1 files should be either
> >
> >a) application/xhtml+xml
> >b) application/xml
> >c) text/xml
> >
> >(with "a" being preferred) and *should not* be sent as text/html
> >
> >Now it doesn't go as far as saying 'must not' but it doesn't say
> 'May'
> >either.
> >
> >Wouldn't this confuse older browsers (who aren't going to know
> enough to
> >display application/xhtml+xml) ?
> 
> Yes it does - Netscape 4 pops up a "download" window when it
> encounters any
> of the above content-types. This is a rpetty good reason to stay
> with XHTML
> 1.0 for quite a while.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Simon Willison
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/~cs1spw/blog/
> 
> -- 
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of thelist go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt ! 


=====
var me = tom.pixelmech.webDeveloper();

http://www.pixelmech.com/
http://www.maccaws.com/
[Making A Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com