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

Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:48:33 +0100
To: "www-validator@w3.org Community" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070426154833.GC15345@us-lot.org>

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 05:27:25PM +0200, Sierk Bornemann wrote:
> >That's a bug in the webserver then. The HTTP spec says to assume that
> >a client supports everything if it doesn't say otherwise.

> I use a mod_rewrite rule to rewrite "text/html" into "application/ 
> xhtml+xml", if the client says, that it supports this mimetype.

And as someone mentioned at the time, mod_rewrite isn't a very good
tool for that.

... incidentally, Microsoft Internet Explorer does express that it
accepts application/xhtml+xml documents in its default Accept header.

> >In my eyes, the user-friendlyiest solution would be if your server
> >didn't serve a document under a mime type marked SHOULD NOT under any
> >circumstances.
> 
> See above. See also my full quotet mod_rewrite rule earlier in this  
> thread.

Yes, its a fairly typical example of a mod_rewrite rule that fails to
properly parse the accept header. 

Accept: x-application/xhtml+xml-sgmlmode, text/html

Would get served an application/xhtml+xml content type.

> The normal assumtion from the webserver *is* "text/html". It is just  
> only then rewritten by mod_rewrite, if the client says, that it will  
> accept "application/xhtml+xml". If not, "text/html" is served.

But either way, a document which "SHOULD NOT" be served as text/html
is served, and no benefit is gained over using XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01.

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 15:48:41 GMT

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