W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2008

Re: please add Accept header to http request containing application/xhtml+xml

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:02:23 +1200
Message-ID: <480CC89F.1010106@55.co.nz>
To: Etienne Miret <elimerl@gmail.com>
CC: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, www-validator@w3.org, Alexandre Alapetite <alexandre@alapetite.net>

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 Edridge
Received 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