W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > January 2009

Re: [minutes] XHTML and MIME types

From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:25:43 +0100
Message-ID: <49652BE7.3020209@eunet.no>
To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org


And I could bet 50 euros that 900 or more of those 935 sites are mobile 
only sites, leaving about 30 full-web sites  (or less) which use the 
application/xhtml+xml MIME type (probably just demos published on sites 
which explain how XHTML should be used in theory)

Thanks a lot, Casais

Luca

Eduardo Casais wrote:
> Just to give some quantitative basis to the discussion
> on XHTML: the most recent large-scale study of
> browsing on the Internet is the MAMA project by Opera
> (many quite interesting reports at section "Opera" of 
> http://dev.opera.com/articles).
>
> Here are relevant results.
>
> URL analyzed: 		3509180
>
> Declared MIME types (percentages of URL):
>
> text/html:		3505990 (99,91%)
> application/xhtml+xml:	935 (0,027%)
>
> Out of the URL analyzed, 1788294 had a DOCTYPE 
> (50,96%), thus unambiguously identifying the markup
> (percentages of DOCTYPES):
>
> HTML (2, 3, 3.2, 4.0):	1189097 (66,49%)
> XHTML (1.0, 1.1, 2):	569283 (31,83%)
> other:			45046 (2,52%)
>
> >From this, one infers a lower bound of 99,84% for the
> proportion of documents that are unambigously XHTML 
> markup but not advertised as application/xhtml+xml.
>
> Sources:
> http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-basic-document-structure
> http://devfiles.myopera.com/articles/570/doctype-ci-url.htm
> http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/mama-http-headers
> http://devfiles.myopera.com/articles/554/mamaurlset-mimehistogram.htm
>
> E.Casais
>
>
>       
>
>
>
>
>   
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2009 22:26:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 January 2009 22:26:24 GMT