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

Re: HTML Validator HTTP Accept

From: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:23:31 +0100
Cc: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Message-Id: <33A331AB-FC5A-4262-8BA3-F80B9945617F@gmx.de>
To: www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>

Am 12.12.2008 um 07:22 schrieb David Dorward:
> I gave my reasons for not providing such code.

Lame and very weak argument, David. If you propagate not to rely on  
accept headers, then you also have to say, how that can be achieved.  
WITHOUT physically doubling the content.
So, please share your ideas, how to configurate a webserver like  
Apache to fit the needs WITHOUT being forced to physically double/ 
clone the content (and that is, what you have to do, if you only rely  
on q values while using content negotiation and while denying using  
accept headers).
If you are not able to give code examples how this could be achieved  
in practise, you seem like one praying wine but drinking water. Please  
provide a contrete apache configuration code example, that does its  
work in real webservers environment and where the content remains  
unique and is not physically doubled. Or do you have a patent on it?

> "Daily practical use" is "Use text/html".

And if I WANT/NEED my web content be parsed by the XML parser of a  
browser, if possible? And if I WANT/NEED my web content be parsed by  
the browser's SGML parser only if the other way is not possible?

>> All other words around that topic are needless, if they can't be
>> transferred into real world use and can cope with real world needs.  
>> And
>> I told you, where the practical usefulness of content negotiation  
>> ends
>> in real and daily work needs and environments. You can't ignore  
>> fully IE
>> with its lack of capability for application/xhtml+xml.

> Exactly - don't use application/xhtml+xml for typical webpages.

So only for intranet and IE-free zones. And that's far from reality.  
And you know that. What you are proposing is the death of XHTML at all  
and the death of that particular mimetype.
That's the total opposite of what's the interests of the W3C and is  
the opposite of all work behind XHTML.

> (b) Explicitly reminds people to pay attention to q values

AND Accept Headers. And that's we are talking about.
BOTH and depending on each other. And that's the big difference to  
what you talk about.

Sierk Bornemann
WWW:              http://sierkbornemann.de/
Received on Friday, 12 December 2008 15:24:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:57 UTC