Re: XHTML vs HTML media types

Hi Larry,

Larry Masinter wrote:
> 
> RFC 2854 describes the applicability of 'text/html'; I would like to
> ask that any document that talks about the any other MIME type that
> might be used at least refer to it.

Just to be clear, this new type would not be used for any existing
content (unless by some freak accident, somebody authored a conformant
XHTML document).

So in what context are you recommending that I reference 2854?

> I actually think that the double 'x' in 'xhtml+xml' is redundant,
> and that 'application/html+xml' might be more appropriate.

"XHTML" is a brand we're trying to build, so we felt it important that
it be included in the subtype string.  Also, "html+xml" might lead one
to believe that the described content is semantically equivalent to
HTML.  That isn't the case (e.g. the name attribute doesn't have id
semantics in XHTML, as mentioned in my previous email).

We did have this discussion, and reached concensus on "xhtml+xml".

Thanks for your comments.

MB