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

Re: Validator complains because it cannot determine validation mode from document type

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:09:47 +0100
Message-ID: <461581BB.4020902@dorward.me.uk>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, www-validator@w3.org

Shane McCarron wrote:

>> huh? That would be content sniffing and against Web architecture.
>> The mime type has priority and for good reasons.

> A media type in a header does indeed take priority... I know this, of
> course.  My point was that, as we all know, lots of XHTML 1 documents
> get served as text/html when in fact they are really well-formed, valid
> XML.

Shame that, it mostly stops them being run through XML parsers. The RFC
for text/html only mentions XHTML 1.0 documents that follow the
additional guidelines in Appendix C though[1].

>> Imagine you want to serve the source code of this document sending it
>> then as text/plain.  With the above reasoning, it would mean that we
>> do not respect the intent of the author.
>>
>> If you send it as text/html, it is HTML
>> If you send it as application/xhtml+xml it is xml

> If you send it as text/html, it *might* be XHTML. 

It *might* be XHTML 1.0 that conforms to the additional guidelines in
Appendix C (assuming that it isn't non-standard).

> Since we tell people they can do that.  So, since we tell them that, 
> we should at least
> provide some way to help them validate things that they serve up as
> that.

But the document you are serving up isn't XHTML 1.0 with Appendix C.

[1] Well, it says "a profile of", but the note I mentioned earlier in
the thread clarifies.

-- 
David Dorward                               <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 23:10:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:24 GMT