- From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:29:44 +1200
- To: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- CC: www-validator@w3.org, Noa Resare <noa@resare.com>
David Dorward wrote:
>
> On 18 Apr 2008, at 08:58, Noa Resare wrote:
>> In other words, adding "Accept: application/xhtml+xml, */*" to the
>> requests of the validator would be a nice thing.
>
> If wouldn't actually help anything though.
>
> If you are doing content negotiation and then sending exactly the same
> content, but with different Content-Types, then the validator is going
> to get the same data either way - so it makes no difference (and the
> content negotiation is pretty pointless).
>
> If you do serve up different content, then it makes sense to be able
> to validate both versions, in which case you'll need to use some other
> strategy so that you can serve up both to the validator under
> different circumstances.
>
> That said: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=112
>
>> My rewrite rules:
>>
>> RewriteEngine on
>> RewriteCond %{HTTP_ACCEPT} !application/xhtml\+xml
>> RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} \.xhtml$
>> RewriteRule .* - [T=text/html]
>
> This will serve up application/xhtml+xml if the browser sends Accept:
> application/xhtml+xml;q=0, text/html (i.e. explicitly rejecting
> XHTML). You should get a better algorithm.
>
Hi Noa, David,
I'm currently working on a patch for the Validator that will solve this
problem, it will also take care of another two bugs (which are the same
issue really)
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=785
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18
Hopefully I will be able to submit a patch to the Validator team within
a week :)
Thanks
Dean Edridge
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2008 01:30:32 UTC