Re: please reivew mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0

The tests require the page to validate as XHTML and thus as XML, so
mobileOK pages are being authored against a device that will validate,
in theory. Some browsers may parse this as text/html tag soup, which
should not present a problem (right?) -- the document happens to be
nice and correct XHTML.

The reverse isn't true, right -- valid HTML is not necessarily valid
XHTML. But the test isn't proposing the reverse. I understand the
danger you cite in serving malformed XHTML, but surely serving
well-formed valid XHTML does not present this problem.

Dom says that some mobile devices will reject "text/html" document or
otherwise treat them as not suitable for mobile, since they expect a
type consistent with mobile-friendly formats like XHTML MP and Basic.

Sean


On 6/13/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> 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.

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 15:26:48 UTC