- From: Peter Sheerin <lists@petesguide.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 12:16:55 -0800
- To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Hmm. I guess I don't know as much about content negotiation as I thought I did. I was under the impression that I needed a different media type for each type of content that I wish to negotiate on. I have my server configured to set the quality factor for HTML, XHTML, and WAP (XHTML MP) documents according to my preference for how they're served, thusly: AddType text/html;level=4;charset=utf-8;qs=1.00 .html AddType application/xhtml+xml;level=1;charset=utf-8;qs=1.0 .xhtml AddType application/xhtml+xml;level=2;charset=utf-8;qs=1.0 .xhtml2 AddType application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml;charset=utf-8;qs=0.9 .wap If I were to serve XHTML and XHTML MP documents with the MIME type application/xhtml+xml, then how would clients and my server negotiate properly between the two? And while the validator lists XHTML Basic 1.0 as a document type, there is no entry for XHTML Mobile Profile in the extended interface. Doesn't that mean that it can't validate against this profile? ----- Original Message ----- I guess you mean support for the application/vnd.wap.xhtml+xml type. If you deliver your documents as application/xhtml+xml the validator supports the XHTML Mobile Profile, just like any other proprietary document type. I would suggest to lobby the Open Mobile Alliance to register the MIME type... Even though I somewhat miss the point of having this MIME type in the first place, implementations are required to support application/xhtml+xml anyway.
Received on Monday, 1 March 2004 15:17:03 UTC