Shane P. McCarron <ahby(_at_)themacs(_dot_)com> writes:
[In this message I am trying a new tactic here to speed up
deliberations. -spm]
[...]
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:
[...]
For the record, there are also members of the HTML WG who have expressed
a strong protest to creation of a new media type text/xhtml. Sun
Microsystems has repeatedly been among these members, with the reasons
previously explained in detail within the WG archives.
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)?
I unfortunately today cannot spend much time on this reply as I must
soon leave the office. The biggest problem I see is that while XHTML
may be a special class of application, there needs to be some means
of content or 'feature' negotiation that provides specific information
about the document type. If this solution is successful, there will
be no need for a new media type, and such a single-use solution will
keep XHTML off in its own landscape rather than integrated into a more
general XML solution. Perhaps that is what some vendors want, especially
those that benefit from HTML continuing within its proprietary universe.
I think it a big mistake.
If the HTML WG is successful in defining 'document type profiles', there
will be little need for a new media type.
Murray
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML Grease Monkey <mailto:altheim@eng.sun.com>
Member of Technical Staff, Tools Development & Support
Sun Microsystems, 901 San Antonio Rd., UMPK17-102, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4900
An SGML declaration does not an i18n make.