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

Re: XHTML 1.1 as text/html

From: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:07:04 +0200
Message-Id: <436D94FE-FCA4-49E4-9AB0-10267B5E2442@gmx.de>
Cc: "www-validator@w3.org Community" <www-validator@w3.org>
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>

Hi Karl!


Am 27.04.2007 um 01:39 schrieb Karl Dubost:

> 2. So far sending XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml is wrong

What do you mean with this sentence? I don't get it clearly.

> 3. Accept Header application/xhtml+xml is at work for the validator.

Does this mean, Validator will send an Accept Header in the near future?
That would be great!

>    (Note btw, that once the validator sends accept header  
> application, the
>     configuration mistake of Sierk would not be detected, which is  
> bad too)

What do you mean with this sentence? I don't get it clearly.
What kind of Accept Header precisely will Validator send?
What does "once the validator sends accept header application"  
clearly means?
Why wouldn't it be detected by my configuration either?

> 4. When a user agent says "accept everything", it does NOT mean  
> "render everything".
>    (For example, one thing I was doing in the past with user agent  
> which didn't
>     support application/xhtml+xml is to put the handler to open the  
> document with
>     Mozilla. We do the same thing for example with RSS feed, open  
> with my RSS
>     feed reader.)

Would you point each user out there to configure his browser/OS so,  
that Firefox will open, if he wants to surf a XHTML webpage, which is  
served with "appliocation/xhtml+xml"?
I think, you wouldn't. Because that's far from being practical for  
public. If that is your intention, then XHTML 1.1 and all successors  
have no chance to be used public and they would never have.

> 5. User agent sniffing is not very practical and leads to bad choices.

ACK.
Nevertheless, it would be handy, if Validator, as a client, would  
provide one.

> The validator did the right thing in this case and at the time being:
>     an XHTML 1.1 document is sent with text/html.  Wrong.

I would agree, if there wouldn't be any mechanism to detect the  
clients' capabilities. But there is a mechanism. Which doesn't work  
properly, because Validator doesn't behave like a talkative client  
and doesn't tell details about its capabilities.

> I wonder if Sierk is using ruby markup in his pages. If not, your  
> document could be XHTML 1.0.

Surely, my document could be XHTML 1.0. It surely could be HTML 4.01.  
Both served as "text/html". But the markup of the most of my webpages  
fulfills the needs to use a XHTML 1.1 doctype. So why not using it?
I intentionally want to use that Doctype, which fits the content  
most, and vice versa, I try to write my content to fit the needs not  
only of XHTML 1.0 but even to fit the needs of XHTML 1.1, I even try  
to write my content in a manner, that it is relative easy to make a  
transition to XHTML 2 or (X)HTML 5 (or whatever name it would be in  
the future according to the HTML WG).
I intentionally have on my agenda to write some pages with XHTML/SVG/ 
MathML. Therefore, I *have to* use "application/xhtml+"-Mimetype.
I intentionally want to use the appropriate and recommended XML- 
Mimetype for XHTML (whatever version, 1.0 or 1.1). I intentionally  
want to avoid to serve my webpages with an SGML-Mimetype "text/html",  
this should only be done for legacy browsers like IE. All other  
brothers, who are full XHTML-ready (who understand the recommended  
MIMEtype "application/xhtml+xml") should receive it. If I would stick  
to serve XHTML 1.x with "text/html" in any case, regardless of  
checking, if the client would understand the XHTML mimetype, the  
whole thing would be worthless, I could stick to HTML 4.01 as well.  
But that's not, what I intend.



Regards,
Sierk
-- 
Sierk Bornemann
email:            sierkb@gmx.de
WWW:              http://sierkbornemann.de/
Received on Friday, 27 April 2007 12:09:34 GMT

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