- From: John Kemp <john@jkemp.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:23:38 -0400
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- CC: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, public-html-request@w3.org
Jamie Lokier wrote: > Sam Ruby wrote: >> http://feedvalidator.org/testcases/atom/1.1/brief-noerror.xml > >> This is a testcase (you might have guessed such from the URI). It >> has been served as application/xml for years. Sometime during the >> that period a number of uppity browsers one by one decided to throw >> out the rules that have guided the development of the internet and >> that they knew better than I did as to how this data was intended to >> be displayed. > > What's the problem with this resource? > > I'm assuming that one-by-one uppity browsers includes Firefox, as > there aren't many major browser engines. The resource seems to behave > fine in Firefox. Depends what you call fine I suppose. The content-type is reported (via 'View Page Info') in my Firefox 2 as application/xhtml+xml. However, the page is rendered as if it were an ATOM feed (which usually has the content-type application/atom+xml IIRC) rather than as if it were XHTML. The user of a user-agent would probably call that fine. The person configuring his web server to deliver a particular piece of content with a specified content-type might not. Both attitudes seem reasonable. Regards, - johnk > > -- Jamie >
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 21:24:25 UTC