- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:52:08 +0200
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- CC: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Steven Pemberton wrote: > ... >> Digging deeper shows that you rely on IE's content-sniffing kicking >> in. This seems to depend on the extension being "html" (it won't work >> with "xhtml", for example). So IE is interpreting the page as HTML, >> not XHTML. > > Not me. That's someone else's page. I, like most people, tend to deliver > XHTML to IE as text/html in most cases. But the point is that the > authoring is XHTML, and the user experience at the end is correct. > That's all I am worried about. Well, whether the user experience is correct depends a lot on authoring practices (empty tags, scripts, ...). So this is interesting for testing, but it wouldn't want to rely on IE's content-sniffing habits for production use. >> BTW: the page claims: >> >> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> > > Yes, presumably a mistake. It's a real pain that content-encoding is > enmeshed with mime type in HTML. Lucky that HTTP headers are authoritative! But then, the page is relying on IE not trusting the header. As a matter of fact, it also *works* with <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8" /> BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 12:52:51 UTC