W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2005

Re: XHTML as XML

From: Edward Lass <elass@goer.state.ny.us>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:04:04 -0500
Message-Id: <s20b319f.063@mail.goer.state.ny.us>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

Wouldn't it be great if we could just write "please adhere to the
relevant standards" to the entire Web development community and, poof,
every single site out there would do everything right and nobody would
express a less-than-perfectly-informed statement?

We need supporters. A gentler hand would be able to explain any given
spec and its benefits.

Fortunately, there are quite a few in the W3C and on this list who do
it right. That's why we're winning.

* Ed.

>>> "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com> 2/10/2005 7:05:51 AM >>>

"Jesper Tverskov" <jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message 
news:000001c50f67$3f5af1a0$440bc650@tversdatg7y7vv...
> 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.

Google sends an accept header, so your google analysis here is flawed.

> 2) If an http accept-header exists, I test if it contains the string
> "application/xhtml+xml". If it does, as is the case for
Mozilla/Firefox,
> Opera, Amaya, etc. I use XHTML 1.1 and mime-type
application/xhtml+xml
> and I include the xml declaration at the top of the document (same
as
> case 1).

This is incorrect, the presence of application/xhtml+xml in the accept

header does not mean that the user can support that mime-type, please
adhere 
to the relevant standards 
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html and 3.9

Jim.
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 15:04:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:02 GMT