Sierk Bornemann wrote: > > Am 24.04.2007 um 12:14 schrieb olivier Thereaux: > >> The rule for XHTML 1.1 is that it should always be served as >> application/xhtml+xml. The technique you are using, to serve it >> conditionally as text/html, goes against that rule. > > I want to use XHTML 1.1, and I want to serve the apropriate MIME type to > all browsers, which do suffice these standards requirements and who > support this MIME type. So the only web browser, who is served with > "text/html" seems to be the Internet Explorer (which has got a lower > priority in my concerns, but that is another debate). per default, I > serve the .html-Suffix as "text/html", if the client/web browser does > supply "application/xhtml+xml", it will be delivered with that MIME > type. If the client/web browser doesn't supply this MIME type, then it > will be served as "text/html". > > My question is: why doesn't the validator catch that MIME type, that is > served as "text/html" but re-written to "application/xhtml+xml"? I must > assume, that the current validator 0.8 beta doesn't send an > Accept-Header, so that the Rewrite-Rule has no chance to work. > If I am right, why doesn't validator 0.8 beta send an Accept-Header, and > would'nt it be better to do so? > If validator 0.8 beta *does* send an Accept-Header, why doesn't my > rewrite-rule work as it works with other user agents like Firefox, Opera > and Safari? The beta does not send an accept header. By not positively asserting that it accepts XHTML, it is pedantically applying a rule in a way that penalizes those that are attempting to do the right thing in the face of indifference and inaction by the vendor of the dominant browser. - Sam RubyReceived on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:46:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:01 UTC