On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:36:49 +0200, William F Hammond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
About 7 years ago there was argument in these circles about whether
correct xhtml+mathml could be served as text/html.
As we all know, a clear boundary was drawn, presumably because it
was onerous for browsers to "sniff" incoming content and then decide
how to parse.
Actually, it was not the browsers:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2000Sep/0024.html
As things have evolved, we now know that browsers do, in fact, perform
a lot of triage. See, for example, "Mozilla's DOCTYPE sniffing",
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Mozilla's_DOCTYPE_sniffing
That's a very limited set of differences which mostly affect page layout.
Especially since we are speaking about dual serialization of the same
DOM and since there is relatively little use of
"application/xhtml+xml" (and some significant user agents do not
support it), might it not be worthwhile to re-examine the question of
serving standards-compliant xhtml or xhtml+(mathml|svg) serialized
document instances as either "text/html" or "application/xhtml+xml"?
In other words, why not be able to serve both serializations
as "text/html"?
What obstacles to this exist?
The Web.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
