[In this message I am trying a new tactic here to speed up
deliberations. -spm]
I have previously advocated the use of application specific media types
for certain classes of applications. To restate my bias for the record:
I believe that HTML is a special class of application now and into the
foreseeable future, and as such needs to be handled specially by user
agents.
Now, how does that fit into the world in which there is an xml/ class of
media? Well, it can readily. I don't personally care whether there is
a class of xml/*, text/xml.*, or any other variation you might think
of. I don't think that is worth debating that this point. Rather, I
think that the issue is whether specific applications can control their
own namespace within the media type set, or whether they need to work
within a single family of media types that is centrally regulated.
Instead of having that philosophical discussion, maybe we could short
this to ground. Some members of the HTML Working Group would like to
define a new media type text/xhtml rather than relying upon text/xml or
text/html. The basic reasons for this are:
Ease of identifying content by user agents.
Special semantics of markup that cannot be expressed in any schema.
Historical precedent.
Management and evolution of the media type namespace by the responsible
body.
Within the media type text/xhtml, I expect that the W3C will define
additional parameters that can help user agents interpret the contents
of the resource more readily from the envelope. However, as with
text/html, that is the W3C's problem to deal with.
Also, with regard to text/html, and before anyone asks - the reason we
cannot use that easily is because there is too much baggage associated
with it, and too many broken documents out there. We need a new,
distinct media type to make a clean break with the past. XHTML(tm) is a
new XML application that is similar to HTML, but that is extensible, and
whose documents are guaranteed to be well formed and valid. User agents
can operate much more sensible in the presence of such documents than
they can in the presence of the mess that is HTML today.
The reason I am here talking with you all is that the W3C has determined
that, as this is a bigger problem than the general XHTML case, we should
all work together to develop a generic solution.
I have no problem with that in theory, but I also don't have years to
wait for us to define the perfect philosophical answer.
So, my question for you all is, would anyone here object to the creation
of an application specific media type text/xhtml, registered by the W3C,
that would be used to announce resources that are within the XHTML
family (as that is defined by the W3C)?
And, assuming there are objections, what are they specifically?
Maybe if we work from this concrete case we will make more rapid
progress toward consensus.
--
Shane P. McCarron phone: +1 612 434-4431
Testing Research Manager fax: +1 612 434-4318
mobile: +1 612 799-6942
e-mail:
shane(_at_)themacs(_dot_)com
OSF/1, Motif, UNIX and the "X" device are registered trademarks in
the US and other countries, and IT DialTone and The Open Group are
trademarks of The Open Group.