- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:15:57 +1100
- To: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Jesper Tverskov wrote: > 1) First I test if an http accept-header exists. If it does not, as is > the case of Google, I use XHTML 1.1 and mime-type application/xhtml+xml > and I include the xml declaration at the top of the document. What evidence do you have that google is receiving the document as application/xhtml+xml? Well, I can tell you for a fact that google is recieving the XHTML 1.0 variant of your website as text/html. The source code within the Google cache [1] shows an XHTML 1.0 DOCTYPE with no xml declaration, just below the junk google inserts at the top of every cached page. Also, a simple google search for "google support application/xhtml+xml" [2] reveals several documents explaining it is not supported. > It is probably only a matter of time before Google announces or let it > be known that web pages served as xml get higher ranking. Why should google rank pages higher based on the MIME type? There is no semantic difference between a document marked up in plain XHTML 1.0 and the same document marked up as HTML 4.01, so there can be no assumption of an XHTML document being somehow inherently better than HTML. [1] http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:lEyprWLNgFIJ:www.smackthemouse.com/ [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=google+support+application%2Fxhtml%2Bxml -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://SpreadFirefox.com/ Igniting the Web
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 13:16:07 UTC