Just out of interest, are people with mobile sites serving XHTML
Basic using the correct mime type? Would all Japanese keitais barf on
it?
Obviously this has to be set server side dynamically for each
request, or set server side as the default - in addition to any in-
page declarations.
e.g, xhtml-basic should have a mime type set of application/xhtml
+xml, but may be set as application/xml and text/xml, but should not
be set as text/html, the default on most web servers.
list here: http://keystonewebsites.com/articles/mime_type.php
Do the "xhtml" parsers in phones have a "genuine xml parsing" mode?
Or do they just actually treat it as a variation of tag-soup?
Many (web)sites that serve as xhtml 1.1 are actually serving it as
text/html. (Naughty naughty!) Does the same situation obtain in the
mobile space?
(There is no really good reason to serve even xhtml 1.0 to the web
with mime type text/html - most browsers will treat it as slightly
broken HTML 4.01 I think. (good list here - scroll down http://
hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/) The "best" way is to sniff-and-serve based
on the "q" value of the $HTTP_ACCEPT string, setting mime-types and
doctypes dynamically, and cleaning up <x /> type tags for html 4.01.
(I note this just for those few list members who may not know.)
Currently Safari expresses no preference - which is why it sometimes
gets served html 4.01 when it can really handle xhtml 1.1 as xml (I
think). I hope the Nokia Webkit based mobile browser sets "q" values
and handles javascript/external style sheets rather better than
Safari does, but that is another issue.)
Basically the question is, are we heading for the same nasty messy
kludgy "people thinking they are serving xhtml when they are not"
situation on mobiles as we have on the wider net?
Nick
Received on Mon Dec 19 06:37:01 2005