W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > September 2008

Re: rel=CURIE in RDFa, but rel=URI in Link:

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:52:08 +0200
Message-ID: <48E220F8.4050504@gmx.de>
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
CC: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> ...
>> Digging deeper shows that you rely on IE's content-sniffing kicking 
>> in. This seems to depend on the extension being "html" (it won't work 
>> with "xhtml", for example). So IE is interpreting the page as HTML, 
>> not XHTML.
> 
> Not me. That's someone else's page. I, like most people, tend to deliver 
> XHTML to IE as text/html in most cases. But the point is that the 
> authoring is XHTML, and the user experience at the end is correct. 
> That's all I am worried about.

Well, whether the user experience is correct depends a lot on authoring 
practices (empty tags, scripts, ...).

So this is interesting for testing, but it wouldn't want to rely on IE's 
content-sniffing habits for production use.

>> BTW: the page claims:
>>
>>    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
> 
> Yes, presumably a mistake. It's a real pain that content-encoding is 
> enmeshed with mime type in HTML. Lucky that HTTP headers are authoritative!

But then, the page is relying on IE not trusting the header.

As a matter of fact, it also *works* with

   <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; 
charset=utf-8" />

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 12:52:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:49 GMT