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

Re: Help Wanted - better wording for a new warning message (mime type/doctype clash)

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:05:37 +0900
To: Nikita The Spider <nikitathespider@gmail.com>, nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de
Cc: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070307100537.GA5475@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Philip, Frank,

Thanks for your suggestions. I have tried including them as much as
possible, and for now the result is:
http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/check?uri=http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/dev/tests/REC-SVG-1_0-minimal.html#preparse_warnings


On Fri, Mar 02, 2007, Nikita The Spider wrote:
> The word "contradict" might be stronger, e.g. "The doctype contradicts
> the media type". "Conflicts with" is another possibility.

OK. I used "Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type", any better
idea welcome. 

> This looks good to me except for a minor grammatical nit -- I think
> the comma should not be there.

OK.

 
> I think "...such as..." is misleading here. Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but isn't 'text/html' the *only* choice compatible with an HTML
> doctype?

Right, after a bit of thought, I figured that even though sometimes
there may be several authorized media types, there would generally be
only one recommended.
 
> You might also want to point people to this table so that they know
> what their options are:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary

That's only relevant to the case of XHTML, while the warning is
applicable to more document types. I'm trying to keep it as
doctype-agnostic as possible.


On Mar 3, 2007, at 02:02 , Frank Ellermann wrote:

> + Note that using a wrong media type for a certain document type may
> + confuse the validator and other user agents with respect to the 
> + nature of the document, and you may get some erroneous validation
> + errors.

I included your suggestion, thanks!

> Maybe add a link to the relevant RFC 3023 explaining more details,
> it's IMO quite readable.

But isn't it rather specific to a few document types? See my comment
above, I think I'd rather keep the message doctype-agnostic, or else
we're going to need some complicated logic in the templates...

Thanks again! If you have any other suggestion, feel free.
-- 
olivier
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 10:05:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:23 GMT