Comments on: XHTML 1.1 Second Edition WD allows text/html… why? http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/02/17/xhtml-11-second-edition-wd-allows-texthtml-why/ Updates on the march of progress. A weblog about web design, standards, web browsers, and the overall health of the Web. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:20:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: DanielS http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/02/17/xhtml-11-second-edition-wd-allows-texthtml-why/#comment-3934 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:46:08 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/02/17/xhtml-11-second-edition-wd-allows-texthtml-why/#comment-3934 The editors of the XHTML 1.1 Second Edition WD should read the <a href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#mime11" title="Why is it disallowed to send XHTML 1.1 documents as text/html?" rel="nofollow">XHTML FAQ</a> ;-) The editors of the XHTML 1.1 Second Edition WD should read the XHTML FAQ ;-)

Posted using (Not Specified) .

]]> by: John Edwards http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/02/17/xhtml-11-second-edition-wd-allows-texthtml-why/#comment-3931 Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:24:00 +0000 http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2007/02/17/xhtml-11-second-edition-wd-allows-texthtml-why/#comment-3931 That is odd. I was hoping the XHTML problem would be solved once IE supported application/xhtml+XML. Maybe they're hoping this will allow XHTML 1.1 and modularization to actually gain widespread use. I notice no one's yet commented on the <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/" title="W3C HTML mailing list" rel="nofollow">W3C public mailing list</a>. That is odd. I was hoping the XHTML problem would be solved once IE supported application/xhtml+XML. Maybe they’re hoping this will allow XHTML 1.1 and modularization to actually gain widespread use.

I notice no one’s yet commented on the W3C public mailing list.

Posted using (Not Specified) .

]]>