W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > March 2004

Re: XHTML Mobile Profile support?

From: Peter Sheerin <lists@petesguide.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:16:55 -0800
Message-ID: <001c01c3ffca$2708ca30$ad07960a@psheerin>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>

Hmm. I guess I don't know as much about content negotiation as I thought I did.

I was under the impression that I needed a different media type for each type
of content that I wish to negotiate on.

I have my server configured to set the quality factor for HTML, XHTML,
and WAP (XHTML MP) documents according to my preference for
how they're served, thusly:

AddType text/html;level=4;charset=utf-8;qs=1.00 .html
AddType application/xhtml+xml;level=1;charset=utf-8;qs=1.0 .xhtml
AddType application/xhtml+xml;level=2;charset=utf-8;qs=1.0 .xhtml2
AddType application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml;charset=utf-8;qs=0.9 .wap

If I were to serve XHTML and XHTML MP documents with the MIME type
application/xhtml+xml, then how would clients and my server
negotiate properly between the two?

And while the validator lists XHTML Basic 1.0 as a document type, there is no
entry for XHTML Mobile Profile in the extended interface. Doesn't that
mean that it can't validate against this profile?

----- Original Message ----- 
I guess you mean support for the application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml type. If
you deliver your documents as application/xhtml+xml the validator
supports the XHTML Mobile Profile, just like any other proprietary
document type. I would suggest to lobby the Open Mobile Alliance to
register the MIME type... Even though I somewhat miss the point of
having this MIME type in the first place, implementations are required
to support application/xhtml+xml anyway.
Received on Monday, 1 March 2004 15:17:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:13 GMT