- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:52:39 -0500
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- CC: www-validator@w3.org
Karl Dubost wrote: > > huh? That would be content sniffing and against Web architecture. > The mime type has priority and for good reasons. A media type in a header does indeed take priority... I know this, of course. My point was that, as we all know, lots of XHTML 1 documents get served as text/html when in fact they are really well-formed, valid XML. > > Imagine you want to serve the source code of this document sending it > then as text/plain. With the above reasoning, it would mean that we > do not respect the intent of the author. > > If you send it as text/html, it is HTML > If you send it as application/xhtml+xml it is xml If you send it as text/html, it *might* be XHTML. Since we tell people they can do that. So, since we tell them that, we should at least provide some way to help them validate things that they serve up as that. Maybe we do this already and I don't know where the control is. -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 22:52:56 UTC