Re: Microsoft's "I mean it" content-type parameter

Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 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.


- johnk

> -- Jamie

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 21:24:25 UTC