ietf-xml-mime
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2000-10-31 09:48:14
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.