W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-cvs@w3.org > April 2007

[Bug 785] validator does not supply reasonable Accept header by default

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:19:55 +0000
To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1HgJzv-0003uF-6t@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #13 from patomas@hotmail.com  2007-04-24 12:19 -------

(In reply to comment #12)
> > So, it means, among other interpretations, that the validator should offer
> I can't see anything there which describes what CLIENTS should do. Only
> servers.

     Well, i have to say that this idea is not clear for me, so may be you can
explain yourself a bit.

> > shouldn'b any kind of reminder that the document served as 
> > text/html is not correct application/xhtml+xml.
> I've just tested an XHTML 1.0 document with the validator. It gave no
> complaints with text/html or application/xhtml+xml

     This is just arguing since i already mentioned that option a few lines

> It does complain when a XHTML 1.1 document is served as text/html, but the
> documentation is pretty clear when it says that you SHOULD NOT do that.
> If the problem is caused by you detecting that a client doesn't support XHTML
> and then serving XHTML 1.1 as text/html despite the specification, then don't
> do that. If you are doing that, then it is highly unlikely that you are getting
> any of the possible benefits of client side XHTML, so you might as well stick
> to HTML. Even if you continue using XHTML then its relatively trivial to use
> XSLT to output HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 from an XHTML 1.1 document (and since the
> extra features added by XHTML aren't available to text/html clients, this is
> unlikely to cause problems).

Well, if i serve the document in a wrong way, then it will be my fault. But if
you ever have made and application, you should know that should exist any kind
of default state or information, so my default state is to serve the same
document xhtml 1.1 document with out the <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
line and served with the text/html header. It is true that that combination is
not valid, but i still have a valid document to serve, at least, to the
browsers that support it properly.

So my question/proposal is that the validator should offer any option to send
to it the right document with the right header. There are a lot of options for
the validator application to do that, and a simple one is to send a header.
Another simple one is to offer that emulation in a menu, combo box or whatever
option you choose.

> > And of course it only applies to xhtml 1.0, but if you are validating an 
> > xhtml 1.1 document, ther is no possible interpretation to use text/html.
> > Execept, the fact that the documents should be served that way for the 
> > Explorer.
> Needing to support clients that do not support a standard is usually a good
> reason to use a different standard. It isn't usually a good reason to violate
> the specification.

But it seems that i and all the people that think the same way are not going to
get any kind of positive answer, you can close that bug. May be one day someone
will open new one and then will get a different answer.

Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:20:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:17:28 UTC