Re: Getting IE to accept application/xhtml+xml

Hello all,

Although imaginative, this is a really terrible hack! :) Surely the
simple way to do this is to use content negotiation?

The first reason it's not a good idea is that the document is being
sent with an application/xhtml+xml MIME type, which indicates that an
XHTML renderer should be used. The question to ask is why is this
being sent at all, if the browser doesn't have an XHTML renderer?
Content negotiation is the answer here.

The second problem is that the URL being used contains a hard-coded
reference to .html, which goes against W3C recommendations for not
using file extensions.

I don't think we should be encouraging this sort of thing. :)

Mark


On 19/04/07, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> Le 19 avr. 2007 à 20:10, Dan Brickley a écrit :
> > Karl Dubost wrote:
> >> We might issue a warning on this. Saying be careful you have a
> >> conflict between the meta name and the http headers for your mime
> >> type.
> >
> > Is it really a conflict? Can a piece of content not genuinely fall
> > in two categories at once? Or is the rule that, even if this is
> > true in the abstract, ... for each HTTP transaction, there must be
> > exactly one mime type for the content.
>
> 1. The HTTP mime type MUST have precedence on everything else.  So
> what is proposed is a hack relying on an implementation bug.
> 2. I said warning, not error.
>
> See CUAP
> http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap
>
>
> --
> Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
> W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
>    QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
>       *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 13:34:25 UTC