Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

content type for XHTML fragments

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:28:16 -0800
Message-ID: <43CB4B10.6060902@globalmentor.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

A common use nowadays, especially with wikis and newsfeeds, is to store 
XHTML fragments (such as "this is <em>really</em> cool") to be later 
integrated into a larger XHTML document.

What content type should we use for XHTML fragments? My first thought is 
"application/xhtml+xml", but does that somehow requires that the 
information be a complete XHTML document?

The XHTML 1.0 specification at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#strict  
declares that a "strictly conforming document" must have, among other 
things, a DOCTYPE and an <html> element. But the application/xhtml+xml 
specification at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt  seems to indicate 
that "application/xhtml+xml" doesn't necessarily mean "XHTML 
document"---in fact, it says:

     With respect to XHTML Modularization [XHTMLMOD] and the existence
     of XHTML based languages (referred to as XHTML family members)
     that are not XHTML 1.0 conformant languages, it is possible that
     'application/xhtml+xml' may be used to describe some of these
     documents. ...

     Although conformant 'application/xhtml+xml' interpreters can
     expect that content received is well-formed XML (as defined in
     [XML]), it cannot be guaranteed that the content is valid XHTML
     (as defined in [XHTML1]).  This is in large part due to the
     reasons in the preceding paragraph. (section 2, pages 1-2)

This leads me to believe that we may be able to use 
"application/xhtml+xml" to mean "XHTML fragment", meaning that we 
wouldn't have to put the <html> tags in XHTML fragments specified as 
"application/xhtml+xml". But see this discussion:

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/ContentProblems 

Would we have to wrap fragments with at least a surrounding element? 
Must XHTML fragments validate as XML? It would be very useful if there 
was no such requirement---but what content type should we use to 
identify such XHTML fragments?

Garret
Received on Monday, 16 January 2006 07:28:27 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.