On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > 5 minutes ago, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> If you're planning to serve things under the text/html mime type >> (which racket-lang.org currently does, for example) then it should >> definitely be called `html'. > > Do you mean the "Content-Type" header? I understood at some point > that this was a valid, and it sounds like this quote (from the second > link you posted): > > Note that XHTML 1.0 previously defined that documents adhering to > the compatibility guidelines were allowed to be served as text/html, > but HTML 5 now defines that such documents are HTML, not XHTML. > > Keeps it valid -- except that the proper label for this is now "HTML", > and possibly affects parsing in some ways that I'd be insane to rely > on. Right?
Basically, (a) you should use this mime type, since 'application/xml' is liable to behave badly in some browsers and (b) this means that it's HTML (and always has been), and (c) HTML5 will specify the rendering behavior of your page if you make mistakes like forgetting to close tags. -- sam th sa...@ccs.neu.edu _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
