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

Re: Page Validates But Mime Warning Continues

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:02:10 +1200
To: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>
Cc: Tony Broome <tb777@samobile.net>, www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-id: <46D81152.4080503@55.co.nz>

Sierk Bornemann wrote:
> Am 31.08.2007 um 13:54 schrieb Dean Edridge:
>> Tony Broome wrote:
>>> This is what the validator shows when trying to validate:
>>> http://www.tonybroome.com/index.html
>>> This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.1!
>>> Result:
>>> Passed validation
>>> File:
>>> C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\My Web Pages\index.html
>>> Encoding:
>>> iso-8859-1
>>> Doctype:
>>> XHTML 1.1
>>> Root Element:
>>> html
>>> Root Namespace:
>>> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>>> Important Warnings
>>> The validator has found the following problem(s) prior to 
>>> validation, which should be addressed in priority:
>>> Warning Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type
>>> The document is being served with the text/html Mime Type which is 
>>> not a registered media type for the XHTML 1.1 Document Type. The 
>>> recommended media type for this document is: application/xhtml+xml
>>> But I have "application/xhtml+xml" in the header! I'm not working 
>>> with Apachy or any server; just have a ministry website and want it 
>>> to be as standards complient as possible. Is there anything I can 
>>> do? A warning unheeded; is not, needed!
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Tony Broome
>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; 
>> charset=iso-8859-1" /> is being ignored by browsers as your server is 
>> set to "text/html" and this overrides and meta tag value.
>> You should change your document to HTML4 strict, as this is supported 
>> by all browsers. XHTML is not supported by Internet Explorer.
> XHTML 1.0 is *surely* supported by Internet Explorer, as long as you 
> serve this document with the MIME type "text/html", which surely is 
> also allowed by the W3C XHTML 1.0 Recommendation for legacy browsers 
> like IE, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#media with 
> a "MAY" be used.
> Internet Explorer does not understand and can't handle the MIME type 
> "application/xhtml+xml", which is recommended for use with XHTML at 
> all, and which SHOULD be preferred for XHTML 1.0 and SHOULD be used 
> (and no other MIME type else) for XHTML 1.1 and XHTML 2.0, see 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ for details!
> So, what isn't still supported by Internet Explorer, is *not* XHTML at 
> all, but the use of the recommended MIME type for XHTML, 
> "application/xhtml+xml". Knowing that, you have different 
> possibilities to handle that.
> If you want to serve correctly, use either XHTML 1.0 and serve it as 
> "text/html" (then even IE does understand that), or serve as 
> "application/xhtml+xml" (then IE doesn't understand, and there must be 
> a serverside switch or something like that), which distuingishes, 
> which client browser is used meaning if it does understand 
> "application/xhtml+xml" or not. If yes, serve with the recommended 
> mimetype "application/xhtml+xml", if no, stick to "text/html".
> Under that circumstances, XHTML 1.1 only should be used, if that kind 
> of switch does it work, or if all clients do accept 
> "application/xhtml+xml", otherwise stick to XHTML 1.0.
> BTW.:
> If you serve an XHTML document as "application/xhtml+xml", you 
> automatically serve it as an XML document and not as an SGML document, 
> as you would do, if you serve it with "text/html". Consequentely it is 
> useless to use a Meta element in the document  la
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; 
> charset=iso-8859-1" />, because the XML parser doesn't attend it. It 
> is only attended (and so necessary) in SGML mode, meaning if you serve 
> that document as "text/html". You have to advice the *server* to serve 
> the right mimetype, meaning "text/html" for .html-documents and 
> "application/xhtml+xml" for documents with the recommended extension 
> .xhtml. If you do that, you can use content negotiaqtion to serve the 
> right document to the right browser.
> For details, also see
> XHTML 1.0 Recommendation, 5.1. Internet Media Type
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#media
> XHTML Media Types
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
> Serving XHTML 1.0
> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/serving-xhtml/Overview
> Content-Negotiation Techniques to serve XHTML 1.0 as text/html and 
> application/xhtml+xml
> http://www.w3.org/2003/01/xhtml-mimetype/content-negotiation
> Serving XHTML with the Right MIME Type588
> http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/sep2003/
> Serving up XHTML with the correct MIME type
> http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php
> See also the still open and still-not-be-solved Validator Bug #785 on 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=785 and hot discussion 
> on this item on www-validator@w3.org.
> Sierk Bornemann
You can quote al the jargon you like Sierk, but at the end of the day 
you and I both know the lack of validity of those quoted pages and how 
they are disputed by people that actually know what XHTML is.

Why send a XHTML document over the net knowing full well that it will be 
treated as HTML/tag soup. It's just bogus!

If you're using "text/html" stick with HTML4 strict.

Dean Edridge
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 13:02:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:53 UTC