W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Media type

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:11:03 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a01060005-1021-8E7D3DE1E6C311D6ABDD00039300CF5C@[]>

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>* Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
>>It would perhaps be a good idea if the validator reported the media
>>type of the validated resource [...and...] probably also report what
>>character encoding it detected (the old one does).
>Agreed for both. Maybe it should just echo the complete HTTP response
>header, or link to http://cgi.w3.org/cgi-bin/headers?uri=...

I think perhaps at least a link in the results that will show a complete
set of relevant metadata is in order.

>As for XHTML media types, the validator should try to complain if the
>recommendations of http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ are not
>met, e.g. complain if an XHTML 1.1 document is published as text/html.

Hmm, yes, good idea. I think I even have an idea for how to implement that.
It won't make it into this version though. But look for it when development
of the next version starts (hopefully at about the same time as we go to
final release with this version).

As a side note, we're informally calling this release 0.6.0, and the next
one 0.7.0. It's not advertized anywhere to avoid creating any expectations,
but the version numbers can be usefull when discussing multiple versions of
the code.

>There is already a great test case available:

LOL! :-)

We've gotten to a point where a human-readable,  human-editable text format
forstructured data has become a complex nightmare where somebody can safely
say "As many threads on xml-dev have shown, text-based processing of XML is
hazardous at best" and be perfectly valid in saying it.     -- Tom Bradford
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 16:11:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:34 UTC