[xml-h] Sanctioning the xhtml extension for use with application/xhtml+xm l

[Ted Pibil]

On Monday 14 April 2003 22:18, Micah Dubinko wrote:
> I'd like to hear what folks here think about the use of the .xhtml file
> extension, with a fixed media type mapping to application/xthml+xml. Good?
> Bad? Does it break anything?

It depends on how much of the UA market you want to cut out. ;-)  Serving the 
application/xhtml+xml media type is one issue.  The .xhtml file extension is 
another.  If you try to do both, you will be limited to Gecko based UA's, 
Amaya and Opera.  If you are  a purist, go for it.

I wrote this article[1] a couple of months ago and is very similar to Mark 
Pilgrim's recent xml.com article[2].

[1] http://www.pibil.org/technology/writing/xhtml-media-type.html

[2] http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/03/19/dive-into-xml.html

-- 
<ted />
Ted Pibil, ted at pibil.org
Fingerprint = 16F3 68F9 D985 EAD7 46BA BFBB 4258 4E32 76E8 B04A
GPG Public Key: http://www.pibil.org/ted/tp_gpg_key.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
Url : http://lists.usefulinc.com/pipermail/xml-hypertext/attachments/20030415/82e79739/attachment.pgp