- From: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:04:11 +0200
- To: Gez Lemon <gez@juicystudio.com>
- Cc: "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>, "Andries Louw Wolthuizen" <info@andrieslouw.nl>, "www-validator Community" <www-validator@w3.org>
Am 31.07.2007 um 10:23 schrieb Gez Lemon: > Hi Olivier, > > On 31/07/07, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote: >> >> Trying to work around browser bugs is very understandable, but an >> improvement to this technique would be to use application/xhtml+xml >> as the *default*, as it should be for XHTML 1.1. Not the other way >> around. Hence: >> >> * if accept headers present, and application/xhtml+xml not accepted, >> send text/html >> * else, send application/xhtml+xml >> >> I think this would be a much more sane behavior. Gez? What do you >> think? > > Yes - as XHTML 1.1 should not be delivered with a MIME type of > text/html, the approach outlined here is far more sensible. In theorie -- yes. Please provide an example, how you can *reliable* distinguish, if a browser does *not* accept "application/xhtml+xml" to serve him "text/html" instead? Maybe I missed something, but I only know of reliable mechanisms to check, if a browser *does* accept "application/xhtml+xml". How do you check this and, much more important, if it *doesn't* support that Mimetype, *without* relying on the client's Accept header? Providing a solution would be very helpful, and I would be *very* lucky... Sierk -- Sierk Bornemann email: sierkb@gmx.de WWW: http://sierkbornemann.de/
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 13:04:21 UTC