- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:48:33 +0100
- To: "www-validator@w3.org Community" <www-validator@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 05:27:25PM +0200, Sierk Bornemann wrote: > >That's a bug in the webserver then. The HTTP spec says to assume that > >a client supports everything if it doesn't say otherwise. > I use a mod_rewrite rule to rewrite "text/html" into "application/ > xhtml+xml", if the client says, that it supports this mimetype. And as someone mentioned at the time, mod_rewrite isn't a very good tool for that. ... incidentally, Microsoft Internet Explorer does express that it accepts application/xhtml+xml documents in its default Accept header. > >In my eyes, the user-friendlyiest solution would be if your server > >didn't serve a document under a mime type marked SHOULD NOT under any > >circumstances. > > See above. See also my full quotet mod_rewrite rule earlier in this > thread. Yes, its a fairly typical example of a mod_rewrite rule that fails to properly parse the accept header. Accept: x-application/xhtml+xml-sgmlmode, text/html Would get served an application/xhtml+xml content type. > The normal assumtion from the webserver *is* "text/html". It is just > only then rewritten by mod_rewrite, if the client says, that it will > accept "application/xhtml+xml". If not, "text/html" is served. But either way, a document which "SHOULD NOT" be served as text/html is served, and no benefit is gained over using XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 15:48:41 UTC