W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: please add Accept header to http request containing application/xhtml+xml

From: Nikita The Spider The Spider <nikitathespider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:18:38 -0400
Message-ID: <35e76ac10804210718n7b56336cj9eb76ed35efb6d3b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org, www-html-editor@w3.org

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Frank Ellermann
<nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:
>  NAK:  Warnings about issues users might be unable to change and
>  not necessarily interested to validate are excessively annoying.

OK, then how should a validator tell when a problem is one that a user
might not be able to change and/or is not interested in validating?

>  One of the HTTP servers I use claims that any text/html it sends
>  is Latin 1.  For whatever reasons, it is lying, and I want to
>  validate an ASCII or windows-1252 page, not the braindead HTTP
>  server.  It starts to get surreal when a validator says that it
>  will ignore windows-1252 treating the input as Latin-1, and
>  then emits "non-SGML char" warnings for octet 0x80 (hi Nikita).

So should validators include an option for "my server is broken,
please ignore select HTTP headers"? =)

>  There simply are no HTTP servers for ordinary users allowing to
>  upload .htaccess files, and there are no HTTP servers getting
>  it right without manual intervention.  Some days ago I was very
>  excited when googlepages allowed me to upload a .htaccess file,
>  not the usual "forbidden name" blurb, but it turned out that it
>  simply stripped the dot and ignored the content... :-(

Are you suggesting that there are no Web hosts that permit .htaccess files?

Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 14:19:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:39:50 UTC