Re: [minutes] XHTML and MIME types

>I argue that a lot of those 800 "not-anambiguosly mobile" 
>sites are actually OK for mobile users.

Perhaps, but that is not really the point.

The argument applies to HTML sites as well: they might be
suitable for mobile devices -- but that might be a conscious
result of application design, or just a coincidence. The
issue is inferring the intended target device class from 
explicit declarations associated with the content a priori.

The MIME type application/xhtml+xml is ambiguous, since
at least in the desktop Web, the associated content's
doctypes are not incontrovertibly intended for mobile
devices: some might correspond to XHTML basic
(intended for mobile), some even to XHTML mobile profile
(intended for mobile), many to traditional W3C XHTML
(intended as a replacement of HTML 4.0 for desktop, not
for mobile). 

What you are now trying to put forth is that XHTML 1.0/1.1
itself is intended for mobile devices at a rate so high 
(near 100%) that when application/xhtml+xml is present,
one can simply assume that it is for mobile and eschew
inspecting the DOCTYPE declaration entirely. I doubt very
much this inference chain holds. I see no evidence that
standard W3C XHTML 1.0/1.1 documents are
overwhelmingly produced for mobile content. In fact, I am 
convinced that upon encountering application/xhtml+xml, 
one must check the DOCTYPE, and if this is neither 
XHTML basic nor mobile profile (nor one of the i-mode or
Softbank or Openwave variants) but rather the traditional,
original W3C XHTML, and in the absence of further 
indications, then one should assume desktop-orientated
content.

>Would it be possible to get hold of those 800 urls so that
>we can take a proper look?

Well, you have to contact the MAMA project leader at 
Opera for that.

Even then, this is quite an endeavour: do you really
have the capacity or the tools to inspect 830 or 935 
pages to check their applicability for mobile terminals?


E.Casais

Received on Thursday, 8 January 2009 14:49:20 UTC