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: Andreas Prilop <Prilop2007@trashmail.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:20:43 +0200 (MEST)
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0707311608510.18177@s5b004.rrzn.uni-hannover.de>

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Sierk Bornemann wrote:

>> HTML and XHTML are different.
> Except the Doctype, the html namespace and the adequate Mimetype
> (served Content type) -- where are the the differences concerning the
> *content*, especially concerning the markup elements and the semantics?

Hint:   <BR>   <br />
If you really don't understand the difference between HTML and XHTML,
I won't explain it to you.

> As you proved above with your own documents, you serve it twice. And,
> more difficult, you have to provide it twice on the server.

exist twice because ruby markup formally exists in XHTML 1.1 only.
But I have an (unspecified) HTML version, too, to show that
Internet Explorer 6.0 will also display ruby markup with complex

> But what about dynamically served and maybe frequently
> changed documents? What about documents generated by a Content
> Management System or Blog?

If you want to serve content on the web, do it in HTML 4 (Strict)
and forget about XHTML! The web runs on HTML.

> You have to provide each document twice as .html document and
> as .xhtml document?

Of course not! When you want to present come document, do it with
HTML 4 and text/html !

It's only you, who has the silly obsession to serve one and the same
document with different MIME types. What's the point?

*You* have an obsession to serve one MIME type to Internet Explorer
and another MIME type to other browsers. I continue to call this
a stupid idea - no matter what olivier Thereaux says about politeness.
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 14:21:06 UTC

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