- From: Luca Passani <passani@eunet.no>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:20:00 +0100
- To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>
Please pardon my jumping into an old thread, but this is funny, because the point I was making in my post one-week old post below just materialised in front of me on the W3C website: http://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG/2009/01/05/best_practices_to_develop_mobile_web_app here is what I am getting (Firefox): XML Parsing Error: undefined entity Location: http://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG/2009/01/05/best_practices_to_develop_mobile_web_app Line Number 42, Column 518: Comment from: pravin [Visitor] <a href="http://www.w3.org/blog/BPWG?disp=msgform&comment_id=4005&post_id=998&redirect_to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-mit.w3.org%2F2005%2F06%2Fblog%2FBPWGBlog.php%3Fblog%3D8%26title%3Dbest_practices_to_develop_mobile_web_app%26posts%3D3%26page%3D1%26more%3D1%26c%3D1%26pb%3D1%26disp%3Dsingle" title="Send email to comment author"><img src="http://www.w3.org/blog/rsc/icons/envelope.gif" width="13" height="10" class="middle" title="Send email to comment author" alt="Email"/></a> · <a href="http://localhost/wurfl/wurfl_php.php" rel="nofollow">http://localhost/wurfl/wurfl_php.php</a> </div> ---------------------------------------------------------------- It is honorable that W3C tries to eat its own dogfood, but, as I was saying, XHTML breaks way too easily to be viable for the big web. The risk that someone somewhere injects a poisonous entity into your site is just too high.... Luca Luca Passani wrote: > > Tom Hume wrote: >> >> >> On 7 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Luca Passani wrote: >> >>>>> > sean: Sometimes there's content for high-end phones tagged as >>>>> > "mobile" that may not work on a low-end phone. We already have a >>>>> > method for keeping proxies away from content, "no-transform" >>>> [snip] >>>> Which bit of Seans comment do you disagree with here Luca? >>> I disagree with the idea that who runs the network feels entitled to >>> know better than those who created the application and owns the >>> copyright. Can I? >> >> Course you can :) I don't see any assertion to the contrary in the >> comment from Sean that you quoted. > > Sean's comment reveals that Novarra feels entitled to reformat mobile > content to make it better (for their definition of better). I disagree > with that notion. What's your problem? > >> >>> While I'm here, it still does not make sense that the XHTML MIME >>> type is not accepted as an indication that a site is mobile. This is >>> the situation with 99%+ of the content out there >>> (application/xml+xhtml == MOBILE), so there you have a perfectly >>> simple and effective way to detect mobile. >> >> >> This is not universally true though - you and I discussed this back >> in March last year on my blog posting at >> >> http://www.tomhume.org/2008/03/guidelines-for.html >> >> Where Russ Beattie popped up to point out that whilst this MIME type >> is a decent heuristic (and it's noted as such in CT), it's not absolute. > > OK, so, since your ask for it, I will repeat all the arguments here > (and by the way, Russ wrote that comment when he was still trying to > make Mowser fly, so he was heavily biased at the time). > > The XHTML Mime type can be used for web content only theoretically. > In practice nobody uses that MIME type for full-web content simply > because it would break way too easily on all browsers (save-as dialog > for MSIE users, catastrophic error messages and no content at all for > Firefox, Opera and Mozilla). Nobody uses XHTML for full web content, > not even those who think they are using XHTML (somewhere they'll be > doing something which will make all browsers reverse to quicks mode > and consider their xhtmllish mark-up as nothing more than tag-soup). > Because of this, application/xml+xhtml is an excellent heuristics to > detect mobile content (the only place where the MIME type is adopted). > Now, I can understand that W3C would find the idea of accepting that > MIME type as an indicator of mobile content embarassing (it could be > read as the admission that XHTML did not go very far on the web). On > the other hand, this is not my problem and it is simply not OK to > discard application/xml+xhtml as a good heuristics for CTG because > the following holds in virtually all cases: > > application/xml+xhtml => mobile content > > Luca > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 12:20:49 UTC