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

Re: Validator doesn't send HTTP_ACCEPT headers, "Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type" warning is incorrect.

From: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:20:02 +0200
Message-Id: <C8B98AD8-FFFB-4360-9F2C-40FEC0DC9FA8@gmx.de>
Cc: "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>, "Andries Louw Wolthuizen" <info@andrieslouw.nl>, "www-validator Community" <www-validator@w3.org>
To: "Gez Lemon" <gez@juicystudio.com>

Am 31.07.2007 um 15:49 schrieb Gez Lemon:

> so you would
> have to check something, otherwise you couldn't know.

That's *exactly* what the discussion is about! :-)
You do *need* an information to make or to provide decisions. An  
empty Accept header or even an Accept header providing "*" (the  
latter IE provides, any we all know, that he lies about that, because  
IE *doesn't* accept *all* as its accept header suggests -- it doesn't  
know application/xhtml+xml for instance) doesn't provide any useful  
information about the client's capabilities.
Even IMAP email server and clients talk to each other concerning the  
capabilities. Most modern web browsers do that concerning their  
Accept header. Why not also the validator, which behaves like a  
normal requesting client to the webserver?
What strong arguments are there *against* and *not* providing *any*  
useful Accept header for the validator?
I cannot follow this strange and strong resistance against an accept  
header -- providing an accept header to the validator would be *so*  
useful in my eyes...!
See also the discussions concerning the years old bugs about that  
(http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18 and http:// 
www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=785). It seems, that I am not  
alone with my opinion concerning that item...

Sierk Bornemann
email:            sierkb@gmx.de
WWW:              http://sierkbornemann.de/
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 14:20:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:52 UTC