- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:52:49 +0100
- To: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Cc: "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>, "www-validator Community" <www-validator@w3.org>
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:40:42 +0100, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> That seems like a separate issue unless you think there is no problem >> if the validator gets text/html content that contains <title/> instead >> of <title></title>. > > I suspect the theoretical case Shane mentioned is this: > > One XHTML document, its a bit rubbish since it has no title (just > <title/>). > > Validator comes along, gets the XHTML as application/xhtml+xml. > > All valid, and HTML compatibility not a consideration (since it isn't > text/html). > > Along comes Internet Explorer and the same document is served up as > text/html because the admin has detected to use User Agent sniffing. I'm not really concerned about this case. Also, this scenario also does not prevent adding the check for text/html content. It just demonstrates a (currently) rare case where such content would not be properly checked. Giving users an option to set the Accept header in various ways seem fine, but the main issue here is with XHTML just delivered as text/html. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 8 December 2008 16:53:34 UTC