Re: conflict between mime type and documet type

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Haines Brown wrote:

I've an XHTML 1.1 document (URL: http://www.USS-Irex.info) that to be
valid requres an .xhtml extention to avoid a conflict between the
text/html media and the XHTML 1.1 document type.

Rubbish!
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...nt-type.x.html

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Haines Brown wrote:

I've an XHTML 1.1 document (URL: http://www.USS-Irex.info) that to be
valid requres an .xhtml extention to avoid a conflict between the
text/html media and the XHTML 1.1 document type.

Rubbish!
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...nt-type.x.html

Well not exactly "Internet Explorer 6/7 (Windows XP/2003/Vista) ignores

the content-type when the “file extension” is .html."

IE6 offers download box for both links (.xhtml & ) when served as
application/xhtml+xml;

IE7 ignores the content type on link to the extension .html On WinXP Pro

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...nt-type.x.html

Well not exactly "Internet Explorer 6/7 (Windows XP/2003/Vista) ignores the
content-type when the “file extension” is .html."
IE6 offers download box for both links (.xhtml & ) when served as
application/xhtml+xml;

I can confirm this only for Windows 2000.
I have tested Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP and 2003 on
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...nt-type.x.html
and found that it does not offer a download box for ".x.html"
but displays the page.

Does the behaviour depend on "Service Packs" for the operating system?

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell

Andreas Prilop wrote:

I can confirm this only for Windows 2000.
I have tested Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP and 2003 on
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...nt-type.x.html
and found that it does not offer a download box for ".x.html"
but displays the page.

I get the same result as you with both IE6 & 7 on Win XP.

--
Gus

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Haines Brown wrote:

I see that a document served as XML does not have any meta http-equiv
statements read.

<meta http-equiv> is completely irrelevant!
What matters is only the HTTP header and the content-type defined
therein. You can see the HTTP header with http://web-sniffer.net/
or with

lynx -head -dump http://www.example.com/

However, I find that the the web server will not deliver documents
named "test" or "test.x.html", reporting URL not found.

Which server software do you have? Normally, there should be
no problem naming a file "test" or "test.x.html". Some Windows
systems make trouble with filenames that start with a dot
like ".htaccess".

Of course, you need to define the proper type with your server.
In Apache, you could write into your .htaccess file:

DefaultType application/xhtml+xml
AddType text/html html
<Files *.x.html>
AddType application/xhtml+xml html
</Files>
AddDefaultCharset utf-8
AddCharset utf-8 html

which results in the following types:

test application/xhtml+xml;charset=utf-8
test.x.html application/xhtml+xml;charset=utf-8
test.html text/html;charset=utf-8

/* This is an example - I don't say you should do so. */

--
Bugs in Internet Explorer 7
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/ie7-bugs

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Haines Brown wrote:

My understanding is that content="application/xhtml+xml; is bogus

<meta http-equiv> is bogus.

W3C says in regard to XHTML 1.1, content-type,
"application/xhtml+xml' SHOULD be used for XHTML".

Content-Type != <meta ... content-type ...>

Find the real Content-Type with http://web-sniffer.net/ .

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell