On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:53:22 +0100, Marcos Caceres
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Moi? a personal political agenda to rid the word of
application/xhtml+xml? never! :P
Seriously speaking, the list of types is supposed to reflect what the
working group believes are the core development technologies that
underpin widgets (for version 1.0, at least). I personally don't have
an issue with including application/xhtml+xml, but I think it is
unfair to require implementations to support it. Also, having optional
supported types introduces fragmentation. However, we could add
application/xhtml+xml and say that if the implementation does not
handle xhtml, then it may treat it as text/html... but that is
probably just asking for problems(?).
I'd prefer if they treated it as application/xml instead.
In fact, authors who want to use XHTML (or SVG, etc) in widgets could just
use the .xml extension and it would work.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
