On 9/11/05, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 14:31:06 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> XHTML is simply a minimal reformulation of HTML in XML, and even uses
>> the HTML 4.01 definitions for its semantics. Given that, it's hard to
>> see why it should be considered a bad thing.
>
> Here is the article:
> http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
I prefer standards over opinions:
<quote>
5.1. Internet Media Type
XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C,
"HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media
Type "text/html" [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML
browsers. Those documents, and any other document conforming to this
specification, may also be labeled with the Internet Media Type
"application/xhtml+xml" as defined in [RFC3236]. (..)
</quote> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/
So just follow the compatibility guidelines (we want people to be able
to read the FAQ anyway) and use text/html.
Jochem
