- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:21:45 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5197 ot@w3.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID ------- Comment #1 from ot@w3.org 2007-10-15 06:21 ------- (In reply to comment #0) > The URL 'http://www.enhanceability.com/strategies/7X05.html' contains the > following types: > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> > > <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="application/xhtml+xml;charset=utf-8" > /> > > > Because the document is valid XHTML 1.1 and also because the 'http-equiv' > 'content-type' ACTUALLY IS "application/xhtml+xml", this looks like a validator > bug. No. - what the validator is talking about is the HTTP Content-Type header - the HTTP Content-Type header always has precedence over the <meta> information (which, at least for the media type, some might argue is plain useless). $ HEAD http://www.enhanceability.com/strategies/7X05.html 200 OK Connection: close Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:19:39 GMT Accept-Ranges: bytes ETag: "9edb46-3d8e-4702a77f" Content-Length: 15758 Content-Type: text/html Last-Modified: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:18:07 GMT Client-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:19:45 GMT Client-Peer: 216.39.58.63:80 Client-Response-Num: 1 > At the same time, are browsers and web servers ready for '.xhtml', '.xht', or > '.xml' file extensions? Some preliminary tests show some inconsistent results > for more than a few recent version browsers. Extensions don't matter, and servers can be configured. Browsers are another story, and indeed serving XHTML as application/xhtml+xml doesn't work for IE. If you don't need ruby annotation, stick to XHTML 1.0 (which can be served as text/html, although browsers will then parse it as "legacy" HTML) or HTML 4.01.
Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 06:21:57 UTC