Etienne Miret wrote: > I think that being able to specify a custom header will only be useful > to tech like people anyway (well, you need to know what > content-negotiation is).But being such a person, I would much more > appreciate to do it in the GUI than by editing the request URL. Yes, I agree, a GUI Accept feature would be a good idea. But I believe that there should be an Accept header sent by default. > > > So, I agree with the two additions you're asking for, but I want to > stress the fact that people who want to use XHTML and to support IE > will still have to do some dirty hacks. Yes of course, I'm not suggesting otherwise, I agree with you here. I'm not trying to suggest that this would be some sort of magic fix-all for using XHTML on the web, I'm just saying that it would be a step in the right direction. Put it this way; If I had to write a tutorial on how to use XHTML, I would not want to have to include a line that says: "...but wait, there's more, you'll have to add this extra line of code so people can validate your XHTML pages on the W3C Validator." I think people are reading too much into this, it's just an Accept header, it's not a hack. Other high quality validators have an Accept header [1]. I don't know why the idea sounds so novel/evil/unreasonable etc... [1] http://validxhtml.org/validators/accept-header/ Dean EdridgeReceived on Monday, 21 April 2008 17:03:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:29 GMT