> > 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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.