Advice on Reference Book

Eric:

http://www.newmediacampaigns.com/page/browser-rest-http-accept-headers
Internet Explorer 8

Accept: image/jpeg, application/x-ms-application, image/gif,
application/xaml+xml, image/pjpeg, application/x-ms-xbap,
application/x-shockwave-flash, application/msword, */*

or if Windows has MS Office installed, then
Accept: image/gif, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-ms-application,
application/vnd.ms-xpsdocument, application/xaml+xml,
application/x-ms-xbap, application/x-shockwave-flash,
application/x-silverlight-2-b2, application/x-silverlight,
application/vnd.ms-excel, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint,
application/msword, */*

However on a page refresh, IE will probably send only */*
http://blogs.msdn.com/ieinternals/archive/2009/07/01/9811694.aspx

All three Accept headers mean exactly the same thing: Internet Explorer
accepts everything, including application/xhtml+xml, with no preference.
If Internet Explorer is trying to imply a preference for the listed MIME
types, it should reduce the q value of */*. Since application/xhtml+xml
isn't specified by name, you could serve XHTML to browsers that specify
it explicitly and serve HTML to the rest, including Internet Explorer.

--
John

On 2009-10-22, John Dunlop wrote:

Jonathan N. Little:

IE will not accept application/xhtml+xml,

in which case it would get HTML.

No, it will offer to download the file.

If XHTML is served as HTML, then IE will treat it as HTML and
display the page.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> writes:

John Dunlop wrote:

I haven't read the pages dorayme pointed to, and I don't know what browser
sniffing has to do with content negotiation.

See the articles to understand the consequences of serving XHTMLto IE
as text/html and application/xhtml+xml to others

No one has suggested doing that *or* browser sniffing. Content negotiation
is based on the Accept: HTTP header that's sent by the browser, not on
the user-agent string, and it results in sending XHTML (with the correct
content type header) only to browsers that claim to grok it.

sherm--

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Eric wrote:

However content negotiation also fails, as Internet Explorer is one of
the browsers that claims it accepts pretty much anything.

For me, content negotiation works; for example in
http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/ruby-annotation.var

--
¹ superscript 1 ¼ fraction 1/4 Ð D stroke ð d stroke
² superscript 2 ½ fraction 1/2 Þ Thorn þ thorn
³ superscript 3 ¾ fraction 3/4 Ý Y acute ý y acute
× multiply sign ¦ broken bar

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> writes:

John Dunlop wrote:

No one has suggested serving XHTML to particular browsers or as text/html.
I meant that one could serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml to any browser
that indicates a preference for that MIME type.

But are you not? IE will not accept application/xhtml+xml, so you
either have to serve it for *that* browser as text/html or present IE
users with a download dialog!

You've overlooked a third option: Serve HTML as text/html to browsers
that don't grok application/xhtml+xml.

sherm--

Chris F.A. Johnson:

[John Dunlop:]

Jonathan N. Little:

IE will not accept application/xhtml+xml,

Eric has now posted some Accept headers that say that Internet Explorer,
at least sometimes, accepts everything, including application/xhtml+xml
and treats everything with equal preference.

in which case it would get HTML.

No,

?? Yes, if the author wishes.

it will offer to download the file.

I don't know what files have to do with the World Wide Web, let alone what
they have to do with content negotiation.

If XHTML is served as HTML,

....a condition that would not be met.

--
John

John Dunlop wrote:

Jonathan N. Little:

Google "tag soup"

I don't see what tag soup has to do with the price of fish.

Then you do not really understand the XHTML

--
Take care,

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

John Dunlop wrote:

Chris F.A. Johnson:

[John Dunlop:]

Jonathan N. Little:

IE will not accept application/xhtml+xml,

Eric has now posted some Accept headers that say that Internet Explorer,
at least sometimes, accepts everything, including application/xhtml+xml
and treats everything with equal preference.

You think huh? Point your IE (any version) to this link:

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/xhtml1.0
XHTML 1.0 Strict properly served

in which case it would get HTML.
No,

?? Yes, if the author wishes.

it will offer to download the file.

I don't know what files have to do with the World Wide Web, let alone what
they have to do with content negotiation.

It is what IE offers to do when you tries to display an *XHTML* document
properly served as application/xhtml+xml


--
Take care,

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

Sherm Pendley wrote:

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> writes:

John Dunlop wrote:
No one has suggested serving XHTML to particular browsers or as text/html.
I meant that one could serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml to any browser
that indicates a preference for that MIME type.
But are you not? IE will not accept application/xhtml+xml, so you
either have to serve it for *that* browser as text/html or present IE
users with a download dialog!

You've overlooked a third option: Serve HTML as text/html to browsers
that don't grok application/xhtml+xml.

But then you could not use the XML features of XHTML... no SVG, no
MathML, ...

--
Take care,

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

"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> writes:

Sherm Pendley wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> writes:

John Dunlop wrote:
No one has suggested serving XHTML to particular browsers or as text/html.
I meant that one could serve XHTML as application/xhtml+xml to any browser
that indicates a preference for that MIME type.
But are you not? IE will not accept application/xhtml+xml, so you
either have to serve it for *that* browser as text/html or present IE
users with a download dialog!

You've overlooked a third option: Serve HTML as text/html to browsers
that don't grok application/xhtml+xml.

But then you could not use the XML features of XHTML... no SVG, no
MathML, ...

So? The point remains that digressing into what happens when IE is given
XHTML with a text/html content-type is a red herring - it's precisely that
situation that we *avoid* by using proper content negotiation.

I'm not claiming that such negotiation is useful, or easy - just pointing
out that you're having a different conversation than the rest of us. :-)

sherm--