[Bug 5197] warning about nonexistent content-type for XHTML 1.1 doctype with html mime type

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5197


ron@enhanceability.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ron@enhanceability.com
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |




------- Comment #2 from ron@enhanceability.com  2007-10-15 08:12 -------
Comment #1 (In reply to comment #1)

> 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).
> 

Yes, that is the point, that the validator warns about a nonexistent
content-type for XHTML 1.1 doctype with html mime type. 

There is no 'text/html' as claimed in the "Conflict between Mime Type and
Document Type" message.



> 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.

Though isn't IE7 blogged to support the parsing of valid XHTML anyway? 
And many other browsers do support  'application/xhtml+xml' documents. 

> 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.
> 

XHTML 1.1 is more interoperable with more XML. There may be more reasons for
not needing to use XHTML 1.0 that are beyond the matter of an invalid "Conflict
between Mime Type and Document Type" message. 

The "Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type" message does not address an
XHTML 1.1 validation issue. And the message moreover does not provide useful
information about coding documents for standards compliance. 

Because the "Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type" message is not
valid, the bug is still a bug.

Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 08:13:06 UTC