On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikita wrote: > > the META tag would have to end in a /> and then it > > wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. > Sure it would. It may not be in the spec but it's a de facto standard. > Even the W3C validator will accept it as valid HTML. I encourage you to try that with the W3C validator. You will not get the result you expect. > -------- Original Message -------- > From: Nikita The Spider The Spider > Date: 2008-05-13 7:49 PM > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:17 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Nikita, > >> > >> > >> > Are you talking about putting an HTML doctype on > >> > XHTML 1.1-formatted code > >> Yes, but normally you would put XHTML 1.1 markup into an template > written for a different DOCTYPE as shown in this screen shot: > >> > >> > http://xstandard.com/94E7EECB-E7CF-4122-A6AF-8F817AA53C78/html-layout-xhtml-content.gif > > > > Hi Vlad, > > OK, I see what you're trying to do, but the example you provided isn't > > valid XHTML. If it were, the META tag would have to end in a /> and > > then it wouldn't be valid HTML anymore. In other words, it's a good > > example of why you can't just change the doctype in order to switch > > between HTML and XHTML. (In addition, the tags would have to be > > lowercase if it were XHTML, but that's easy to remedy and also works > > in HTML.) > > > > The (X)HTML in the example and content negotiation code you've > > suggested is probably adequate (from a practical standpoint) for many > > Webmasters, but it isn't standards compliant. Given the name of this > > list, that seems pretty significant. > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> From: Nikita The Spider The Spider > >> > >> > >> Date: 2008-05-13 8:43 AM > >> > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:57 PM, XStandard Vlad Alexander > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> HTH wrote: > >> >> >...server has to do content negotiation in order to send > >> >> > >> >>> text/html with one doctype (HTML or XHTML 1.0) to IE users and > >> >> >application/xhtml+xml/XHTML 1.1 to everyone else. That means > >> >> >you're generating two copies of all of your content > >> >> Assuming your are not writing static pages, you only need to > generate one copy of content in XHTML 1.1 format and then serve it as any > version of HTML as you like. > >> > > >> > I'm not sure what you mean -- I understand the XHTML 1.1 part, but > >> > what do you mean then by "serve it as any version of HTML"? Are you > >> > talking about putting an HTML doctype on XHTML 1.1-formatted code, or > >> > serving XHTML 1.1 with the text/html media type, or something else? > >> > > >> > > >> >> HTH wrote: > >> >> > Furthermore, content negotiation itself is some work to > >> >> > get done correctly > >> >> At most, maybe 10 lines of code. Please see: > >> >> http://xhtml.com/en/content-negotiation/ > >> > > >> > My point exactly -- that code is not correct. It produces the wrong > >> > result when presented with an Accept header of */* which is valid (see > >> > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.1) and > >> > indicates that the client can accept application/xhtml+xml. > >> > > >> > The code is also wrong in that the Accept header can contain > >> > preference indicators ("q=..."). It's valid for a client to indicate > >> > that it accept both text/html and application/xhtml+xml but prefers > >> > the former. A straightforward substring search won't get the job done > >> > correctly. > >> > > >> > It's true that these are unusual cases and the consequences of getting > >> > it wrong are minor (text/html sent instead of application/xhtml+xml). > >> > But my point was that it is easy to make mistakes, even if you're > >> > getting it right most of the time. > >> > > >> > There was a recent discussion (pretty vocal, if I remember correctly) > >> > on the W3 Validator list about the subject of content negotiation > >> > involving people with a deeper understanding and appreciation of the > >> > standards than me. You might find it interesting reading. > >> > > >> > Cheers > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > -- Philip http://NikitaTheSpider.com/ Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
