W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2008

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

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:39:43 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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>
Message-ID: <op.uian4htlsmjzpq@acer3010.lan>

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:56:43 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  

> Steven Pemberton wrote:
>> ...
>> Actually I never have any problems getting XHTML into IE to speak of,  
>> and don't really understand the fuss. Even using application/xhtml+xml  
>> works (see http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-ruby-markup-1.html  
>> as an example). I know that there are some differences, but in the vast  
>> majority of deployed pages, with a little forethought you're never  
>> going to have any major issues.
>> ...
> This one caught me by surprise :-)

Yes, me too.

> 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.

> 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!

Best wishes,

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 12:43:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:58 UTC