- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:12:20 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18 ------- Comment #19 from ot@w3.org 2008-01-06 22:12 ------- (In reply to comment #18) > If the HTTP_ACCEPT header indicates acceptance of text/html (but not > application/xhtml+xml), I deliberately choose to violate spec by serving it as > text/html. That's your choice. did you really need XHTML 1.1? > This is a workaround to allow the content to be displayed by broken > browsers; however, I make users very aware of this by printing a warning that > their user agent does not support XHTML and some content may not render > properly. Interesting method. I don't know if all the people visiting your site really need to know about such technicalities, but at least you're trying to raise awareness. > In fact, although I'd > have to go read the HTTP spec to confirm, it seems to me that by sending a > blank (but present) HTTP_ACCEPT header, the W3C validator is stating that it > will not accept *any* content, regardless of format. “If no Accept header field is present, then it is assumed that the client accepts all media types.” http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html > But the fact that IE lacks support for XHTML is no excuse for the W3C to fail > to validate my valid XHTML. Please see http://validator.w3.org/docs/users.html#option-accept
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2008 22:12:25 UTC