- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:29:17 -0500
- To: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
- Cc: public-qa-dev@w3.org
Hi Ville, On 31-Jan-09, at 10:56 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote: > The only thing I'm a bit uncertain of is whether application/ > vnd.wap.xhtml+xml > should be kept in the Accept header. Even though it currently in > the CVS > version has a q value of 0.6 (lower than everything except */*), > some large > sites such as Google and Yahoo now decide to serve mobile versions > of their > sites to the link checker. This is certainly part of a disturbing trend that many sites show, obviously misimplementing content negotiation. In this case I share your uncertainty, but would be tempted to: 1) keep the link checker as it is now. I somewhat hope that sites doing that kind of on-the-fly content adaptation will have the same URI mapping for "web" and "mobile" 1) send a quick mail to the big sites identified 2) write about the issue on a W3C blog, try to put it in a way that is not accusatory but wonder what are the causes of this implementation (bad mobile User-Agents issuing bogus Accept strings?) and what can be made to keep negotiation relevant. > >> Would you prefer doing it or should I? > > I can take care of it, let's say earlyish next week. The only thing > in > addition to possibly the above I have on the TODO list is > mentioning "perl -MCPAN -e 'install W3C::LinkChecker'" in the docs. Good point. I have added a bit of text and see that you've made improvements to that draft. Thanks! -- olivier
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 19:29:29 UTC