RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml

> But the  analogy is gravely flawed in any case -- text/html 
> has proved to have no value whatsoever. And this goes far 
> beyond the notion of "good" and "bad" use.

I think the millions of messages sent using text/html would 
disprove the notion that "text/html has proved to have no value
whatsoever". It seems to me that you are projecting a subjective 
analysis. It's fair to say that text/html is not being used as
intended. That is not the same as saying it is of no use.

Anyway, the genie *is* out of the bag.

> > because again, of (supposed) interoperability, and because they
> > didn't have any escape route.
> 
> Sure they did. Application/html combined with a content-disposition 
> label of "inline" offers all the benefits and has none of the 
> problems.

If that is the case then why didn't the MUA's adopt this?

> > With HTML, the genie is already out of the bottle, but with XML
> > there is a chance to get MUA's working as they should: when
> > sending textual data, use text/xml, but when sending application
> > specific data, send application/foo+xml, etc.
> 
> In case it isn't obvious, I am strongly opposed to this policy.

It's obvious, but that doesn't discount it.