Re: [ANN] Beta test of the W3C Markup Validator (0.8.0 beta 1)

Hi Olivier!

Am 24.04.2007 um 13:01 schrieb olivier Thereaux:

> Hi Sierk,
> On Apr 24, 2007, at 19:33 , Sierk Bornemann wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes, I know the technique, but really, there is no point in using  
> XHTML 1.1 if you're going to conditionally serve as text/html. Why  
> not just use XHTML 1.0 and follow HTML compatibility guidelines?

I wonder a little bit, that I have to cite these two documents to you:

Content-Negotiation Techniques to serve XHTML 1.0 as text/html and  

XHTML Media Types

Look at, what MIME  
type *may* be served and what *should* be served.
What Media type *should* be served using XHTML 1.0? Isn't it  
"application/xhtml+xml"? So the same problem with XHTML 1.0, if I  
want to be strict. And I want to be strict, and I *do* want to serve  
my content as XML, which is parsed by the XML-Parser of the Client,  
if the client is able to do so.
If I should refrain from serving my content as XML/ as "application/ 
xhtml+xml", I should have sticked to good old HTML 4.01. That is not,  
what I intend, that is not, what W3C could have intended. Because  
that means, there is no place in the world for an XML applicable  
language XHTML 1.0 and for sure XHTML 1.1 at all! Because one damned  
browser doesn't supply the XHTML MIME type. That's an old discussion.

See also:

Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful

I *want* to use XHTML, lastly to promote it. I intentionally *want*  
to use XHTML 1.1, lastly to promote it and lastly to provide it to  
web browsers, who are capable in doing their work correctly and  
fulfilling the standards.
Browsers like the Internet Explorer, who don't work correctly, have  
got a bad standing (espacially in my eyes), and I am *not* willing to  
provide (or going further: foster) this bad standing any longer. The  
browser vendor, especially Microsoft, *has to do* his homework in  
delivering a good and reliable piece of software. If he doesn't, it  
is his own fault, and the user should know, that there does exist  
competition out there, which is far better to switch to.
My solution in rewriting the MIME type by the webserver, if it makes  
sense, is a compromise to not let the Internet Explorer out of the  
playground. If IE would understand "application/xhtml+xml", I would  
have much less sleepless nights. In that case, I could serve  
"application/xhtml+xml" to any XHTML document, like the spec defines/ 
recommends. But that is fiction so far.

>> 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.
> Right. This is under discussion here:

In my eyes, with the eyes of my webserver, the W3C Markup Validation  
Service is nothing more than a client, which wants to be delivered  
with content.
So why not sending an identifier and an Accept-String like any other  

>> If I am right, why doesn't validator 0.8 beta send an Accept- 
>> Header, and would'nt it be better to do so?
> I am among those who think it should. Others disagreed. That's why  
> there is a discussion over on the bugzilla. I encourage you to  
> participate if you have new arguments for that debate.

I will see.

Sierk Bornemann

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 10:10:29 UTC