W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2006

Re: XHTML 1.0, section C14

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:58:36 +0200
Message-ID: <456C408C.9060509@peda.net>
To: www-html <www-html@w3.org>

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 14:26 +0200, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
> Since MathML can be placed in an OBJECT, HTML doesn't limit MathML at
> all.

Is there a way to get correct baseline alignment when MathML is 
placed inside an OBJECT? Yes, it's possible to get somewhat 
acceptable result but HTML+OBJECT isn't a substitute for XHTML+MathML.

>> Yes, this is only one example but I hope it illustrates the need for 
>> quality parameter. Only one variant can be the *source* format, all 
>> the other variants that the server is able to provide a more or less 
>> perfect approximations.
> There's no particular reason to assume the source format is a web media
> type at all. It might be serialized out of a database somewhere. 

OK. Usually one of the serialized formats is the "native" format but 
not in all cases.

>> I'd ban the "*/*" in the Accept header unless it had a quality less 
>> than one. If the intent is to hint the server that UA is willing to 
>> download any binary file that choice should be considered a fallback 
>> and it's quality can never be 1. Or if UA's "download source 
>> variant" action has been triggered, then the UA shouldn't sent 
>> Accept header at all.
> What is a "download source variant" action?

If you follow my logic above that there's a *source* format for the 
document and user is allowed to fetch that version then it would be 
the "source variant". As it should have the best quality it should 
be transmitted if Accept's "*/*" media type has quality of 1 or 
Accept header does not exist.

I would expect a normal UA to send list of media types it "supports" 
in its normal Accept header but there could be an UI to fetch the 
"source" version of the document where the UA would repeat the 
request without Accept header (or with Accept: */*).

> Also, according to the HTTP 1.1 specification, sending no Accept header
> is exactly equivalent to "Accept: */*".

Yes, that's the reason I suggested not to send Accept header at all.

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 13:58:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:21:01 UTC