W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter

From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:23:38 -0400
Message-ID: <486D435A.2080300@jkemp.net>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> http://feedvalidator.org/testcases/atom/1.1/brief-noerror.xml
> 
>> This is a testcase (you might have guessed such from the URI).  It
>> has been served as application/xml for years.  Sometime during the
>> that period a number of uppity browsers one by one decided to throw
>> out the rules that have guided the development of the internet and
>> that they knew better than I did as to how this data was intended to
>> be displayed.
> 
> What's the problem with this resource?
> 
> I'm assuming that one-by-one uppity browsers includes Firefox, as
> there aren't many major browser engines.  The resource seems to behave
> fine in Firefox.

Depends what you call fine I suppose.

The content-type is reported (via 'View Page Info') in my Firefox 2 as 
application/xhtml+xml. However, the page is rendered as if it were an 
ATOM feed (which usually has the content-type application/atom+xml IIRC) 
rather than as if it were XHTML.

The user of a user-agent would probably call that fine. The person 
configuring his web server to deliver a particular piece of content with 
a specified content-type might not. Both attitudes seem reasonable.

Regards,

- johnk

> 
> -- Jamie
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 21:24:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:52 GMT