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

At 00/10/18 17:26 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:

So IMHO we should learn from this experience and make XHTML and other
XML-ish things subtypes of application/.


Or of course image/ for things such as SVG.

Regards,   Martin.

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, (continued) Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Keith Moore Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, ned . freed Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Mark Baker RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Gavin Thomas Nicol RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, ned . freed RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Gavin Thomas Nicol RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, ned . freed RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Gavin Thomas Nicol Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, John Cowan RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, ned . freed Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Martin J. Duerst <= RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Gavin Thomas Nicol XHTML vs HTML media types, Mark Baker RE: XHTML vs HTML media types, Larry Masinter RE: XHTML vs HTML media types, ned . freed Re: XHTML vs HTML media types, Mark Baker RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Dan Kohn RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Dan Kohn RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Gavin Thomas Nicol RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, ned . freed RE: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml, Gavin Thomas Nicol