- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:47:08 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=785 ------- Comment #11 from patomas@hotmail.com 2007-04-20 14:47 ------- Hi people (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Or, do you expect that all the pages made with xhtml should be served with > > application/xhtml+xml with out detecting if the browser can or can not manage > > such a thing? > > No, XHTML 1.0 documents served as text/html validate just fine. try it :) > Well I am not sure how to interpret that answer, may be is a joke or may be it is serious... just in case, I will not feel bad for it... But... As we can read in the XHTML Media Types document from 1 August 2002 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/), the w3c states this: "This document summarizes the best current practice for using various Internet media types for serving various XHTML Family documents. In summary, application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML Family documents, and the use of 'text/html' SHOULD be limited to HTML-compatible XHTML 1.0 documents. 'application/xml' and 'text/xml' MAY also be used, but whenever appropriate, 'application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used rather than those generic XML media types." So, it means, among other interpretations, that the validator should offer a fair option to validate a document with the application/xhtml+xml media type through some kind of navigation option in the page or shouldn'b any kind of reminder that the document served as text/html is not correct application/xhtml+xml. And of course it only applies to xhtml 1.0, but if you are validating an xhtml 1.1 document, ther is no possible interpretation to use text/html. Execept, the fact that the documents should be served that way for the Explorer. So i think that the point is still valid, it means, the request filled here. Bye people
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 14:47:17 UTC