Re: HTML Validator HTTP Accept

I can see the problem, yes. The thing is that I don't use Apache's
built in content negotiation, but I manually negotiate the content
with a server-side scripting language. I can see that the solution
with URI-based content negotiation is a good idea for testing against
the W3C HTML Validator, but I would really prefer to use my own
manual way.

So, a solution I was suggesting, would be to have a visual, GUI-based
option in the Validator's interface, so the user could easily set whether
or not he wishes the "application/xhtml+xml" MIME Type to be included
in the HTTP Accept the Validator sends. This way, both versions
can be tested (application/xhtml+xml and text/html). All the user has
to do is check/uncheck a Validator's option, or choose something from
a menu, or anything else you would want to be the way.

Thank you, again.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 8:23 PM, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk> wrote:

> Aristotelis Mikropoulos wrote:
> > Not complicated at all. See? you just proved what I said.
> > If you include such an HTTP header, my site will just do
> > the right thing. Just make the Validator behave the same
> > way with your wget command, so the websites can test their
> > full features (like XHTML 1.1).
>
> Then how do you test the version which is served to clients which don't
> explicitly claim to support application/xhtml+xml? You end up in the
> same situation you have now (you have a text/html version and an
> application/xhtml+xml version and can only test one of them).
>
> Just changing the Accept header the validator sends to a different fixed
> string solves nothing.
>
> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2008Dec/0042.html
> where I mentioned this to you a couple of days ago and pointed at the
> solution being developed for the validator.
>
> I think the point that Andreas is trying to imply is that if you use
> Apache's built in content negotiation to choose between something
> suitable for application/xhtml+xml and text/html then you have three
> URIs for any given set of content.
>
> (1) Content-negotiated (e.g. http://example.com/ )
>
> (2) XHTML (e.g. http://example.com/index.xhtml )
>
> (3) HTML (e.g. http://example.com/html )
>
> With the content negotiated URI picking one of the two representations
> of that document.
>
> You can then validate each representation by using its explicit URI
> instead of the content-negotiated one. I'm a big fan of URI based
> overrides of content-negotiation (since it makes testing easier and lets
> you offer a list of options if the Accept header doesn't include any of
> the content-types on offer), and suggest you implement it in whatever
> system you are using.
>
> --
> David Dorward
> http://dorward.me.uk/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Dorward                               <http://dorward.me.uk/>
>



-- 
Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for
machines to execute.