W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-comments@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:10:20 +0200
To: "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "Ben 'Cerbera' Millard" <cerbera@projectcerbera.com>
Cc: "mobileOK WG" <public-bpwg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ttu5ni0s64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:20:57 +0200, Sean Owen <srowen@google.com> wrote:
> The alternative is to, I suppose, define HTML Basic, which seems
> unnecessary. As you note, many browsers are just parsing XHTML (Basic)
> as HTML anyway.

The specific problem here is that you advocate people to use 1) XHTML  
Basic and 2) use the application/xhtml+xml MIME type and 3) indicate that  
parsing this as HTML is ok.

If pages are actually being authored against a browser which uses an HTML  
parser for application/xhtml+xml this will might break those pages in  
browsers that correctly use an XML parser for application/xhtml+xml such  
as Firefox, Opera and Safari. I suppose advocating that people use the  
text/html MIME type is fine. Saying they should use application/xhtml+xml  
is not given the broken mobile browsers out there as it will likely result  
in more divergence between desktop and mobile browsers.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 14:11:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:50 UTC