Re: HTML Validator HTTP Accept

Aristotelis Mikropoulos wrote:
> Not complicated at all. See? you just proved what I said.
> If you include such an HTTP header, my site will just do
> the right thing. Just make the Validator behave the same
> way with your wget command, so the websites can test their
> full features (like XHTML 1.1).

Then how do you test the version which is served to clients which don't
explicitly claim to support application/xhtml+xml? You end up in the
same situation you have now (you have a text/html version and an
application/xhtml+xml version and can only test one of them).

Just changing the Accept header the validator sends to a different fixed
string solves nothing.

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2008Dec/0042.html
where I mentioned this to you a couple of days ago and pointed at the
solution being developed for the validator.

I think the point that Andreas is trying to imply is that if you use
Apache's built in content negotiation to choose between something
suitable for application/xhtml+xml and text/html then you have three
URIs for any given set of content.

(1) Content-negotiated (e.g. http://example.com/ )

(2) XHTML (e.g. http://example.com/index.xhtml )

(3) HTML (e.g. http://example.com/html )

With the content negotiated URI picking one of the two representations
of that document.

You can then validate each representation by using its explicit URI
instead of the content-negotiated one. I'm a big fan of URI based
overrides of content-negotiation (since it makes testing easier and lets
you offer a list of options if the Accept header doesn't include any of
the content-types on offer), and suggest you implement it in whatever
system you are using.

-- 
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/





-- 
David Dorward                               <http://dorward.me.uk/>