- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:52:48 +0200
- To: Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
* Bertilo Wennergren wrote: >I just tried out the new validator, and it immediately proved to be more >useful than the old one, since it successfully validated my XHTMl 1.1 >pages served as "application/xhtml+xml": > > <http://www.bertilow.com/?xml> > >The old validator refused to touch that stuff. > >Congratulations to the team that worked on the new validator! > >It would perhaps be a good idea if the validator reported the media type >of the validated resource. The choice between "text/html", >"application/xhtml+xml", "application/xml" (and whatever else) for XHTML >docs, is an important issue that many people are not even aware of. > >The new validator should probably also report what character encoding it >detected (the old one does). Agreed for both. Maybe it should just echo the complete HTTP response header, or link to http://cgi.w3.org/cgi-bin/headers?uri=... As for XHTML media types, the validator should try to complain if the recommendations of http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ are not met, e.g. complain if an XHTML 1.1 document is published as text/html. There is already a great test case available: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xhtml11-20010531/ :-)
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 07:52:43 UTC