[whatwg] text/html vs. application/xhtml+xml
elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Thu Nov 30 09:56:36 PST 2006
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> (Still, I am against efforts to make it appear that the text/html and
> application/xhtml+xml syntaxes are one thing.)
I actually do serve some pages as application/xhtml+xml, and they are
real, valid XHTML 1.0. However I get periodic complaints about these
pages because IE6 (and possibly other versions) won't even try to
It's important to understand that resistance to distinguishing text/html
from application/xhtml+xml derives primarily from lack of legacy browser
support, not from any deliberate desire to conflate the two.
Poor default MIME type mappings in server software, and an inability of
many document authors to specify their own HTTP Content-type headers
also contribute substantially to the problem.
Both of those issues really need to be fixed before you can expect XHTML
publishers not to overload text/html. Consequently I think any effort to
distinguish between XHTML and classic HTML based on MIME media types is
doomed to fail for at least the next two or three years.
Hmm, it looks IE7 doesn't fix this bug:
Consequently extend that estimate to 5-6 years before we can even
consider expelling XHTML from the text/html MIME space. :-(
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
More information about the whatwg