- From: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:59:02 +0200
- To: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Cc: public-qa-dev@w3.org
On Monday 02 February 2009, olivier Thereaux wrote: > 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. Works for me. If nobody yells by then, I'll wrap up the 4.4 release tomorrow evening (Europe/Helsinki) as it is now in CVS and upload it to CPAN.
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 17:59:37 UTC