- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:34:19 +0100
- To: "XHTML WG" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
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 13:34:23 UTC