Re: text/xhtml+xml vs. application/xhtml+xml

> > While this doesn't go into as much depth as draft-murata-xml does, the
> > HTML WG believes, despite the DOCTYPE/xmlns/HTML-header preamble, that
> > the bulk (i.e. body) of most XHTML documents will useful, to "some
> > extent" (per above), to casual users.

> I think the general consensus of the MIME community is that making HTML
> a subtype of "text/" was a mistake.  While it is possible to write HTML
> which is readable "to some extent" as plain text, the HTML that is
> generated by a typical MUA or HTML editor is so full of useless cruft
> that it doesn't qualify.  Perhaps a determined human being can read the
> text "to some extent" but the typical human gives up.

> So IMHO we should learn from this experience and make XHTML and other
> XML-ish things subtypes of application/.

I completely agree with Keith. Text/html was a mistake.

                                Ned