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
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