Send the HTTP request Accept header

i was getting a warning when trying to validate any page on my site that 
the mime type is text/html instead of application/xhtml+xml when the 
document type is xhtml 1.1.  at the time i was using code very similar 
to what was suggested under the “setting the mime type with php” heading 
of the document [1] the validator’s warning message linked to:

if (stristr($_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"], "application/xhtml+xml"))
    header("Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8");
else
    header("Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8");

if you’re curious, i’m using stripos() !== false instead of stristr(), 
but other than that (and that i use single quotes and don’t put a space 
after if) i came up with identical code on my own.

the problem is that when the w3c html validator looked at my site, the 
Accept header was blank or missing, so my server sent text/html.  i’ve 
now updated my logic to say if accept contains application/xhtml+xml or 
doesn’t contain text/html, send application/xhtml+xml; otherwise fall 
back to text/html.

i think that since the validator can in fact accept 
application/xhtml+xml, it should say so in the Accept header.  i’d like 
to see application/xhtml+xml, text/html and all other mime types the 
validator is capable of validating sent in the Accept header when 
requesting a file to validate.

thanks!

Re: Send the HTTP request Accept header

Hello,

On 1-Aug-08, at 3:52 PM, misterhaan wrote:
> i was getting a warning when trying to validate any page on my site  
> that the mime type is text/html instead of application/xhtml+xml  
> when the document type is xhtml 1.1.  at the time i was using code  
> very similar to what was suggested under the “setting the mime type  
> with php” heading of the document [1] the validator’s warning message
[...]

Answers at: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5900

cheers,
--

-- 
olivier

Problem with validating password-protected pages

Re: XHTML Basic updated

Hi Shane, all.

On 30-Jul-08, at 7:32 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
> As I am sure you are aware, there are updated XHTML Basic 1.1 and  
> W3C Mobile Profile recommendations available.  Associated with (at  
> least) XHTML Basic 1.1 is an updated DTD.  Please add this DTD to  
> the validator's list of explicitly supported markup languages as  
> soon as possible.

Congrats on the REC status for XHTML Basic 1.1!
I updated the catalog, and it should go in production on Friday.

By Friday (if I get enough time without disturbance, and/or if I get  
help), I am planning to:
* install squid (HTTP cache) on the validator servers
* setup squid to *only* cache DTDs, schemas, entities, modules (but  
cache them very aggressively)
* add an option in the validator config to use caching proxy OR catalog
   (the latter will be default option)

If there is any squid expert around here, with an hour or so to spare,  
that would be phenomenal! Please drop me a line.

Thanks.
--

-- 
olivier

Re: XHTML Basic updated

On 4-Aug-08, at 10:04 AM, olivier Thereaux wrote:
> * install squid (HTTP cache) on the validator servers
> * setup squid to *only* cache DTDs, schemas, entities, modules (but  
> cache them very aggressively)
> * add an option in the validator config to use caching proxy OR  
> catalog
>  (the latter will be default option)

That was assuming that the two software components likely to fetch  
DTDs or Schemas actually supported the use of a caching proxy. A bit  
more research later, I could not find authoritative info on whether  
libxml2 does, but as far as OpenSP is concerned, the news are not good:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1748536&group_id=2115&atid=352115
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=353220

This unfortunately makes the idea of using caching proxies instead of  
catalogs/entity resolvers moot. The (thin, I admit) hope is that  
adding proxy support seems to be on a possible roadmap - at least  
according to this 2003 thread:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=1041881661.1314.8.camel%40kerberos
So maybe if someone wants to give it a shot...

In the meantime, the validator release is still scheduled for Friday,  
but without proxy support.

--

-- 
olivier

Re: Problem with validating password-protected pages

Hello,

On 3-Aug-08, at 11:07 AM, H. Hahn wrote:
> While developing a website, I wanted to validate a certain page that  
> is password-protected.

Did you use HTTP level password protection (the validator can proxy  
that kind of authentication) or form-and-session-cookie? The latter,  
obviously, the validator can not handle, and the best way to check  
such pages is to use direct input or file upload.

> As I was logged in at a sufficiently high level, having access to  
> all pages, I tacitly expected the validator to have the same rights  
> as its invoker (i.e., me) had.

Fortunately, no.

> Only after I re-validated with displaying the complete source code,  
> I found that it had not validated the requested page, but the "Page  
> not found" page. Basically, this was correct, as the validator  
> apparently was refused access to the page.

Not sure why the lack of authentication would return a "page not  
found" page. That does not sound right.

> However, both the validator's address field and the validation  
> result text mentioned the correct URL of the original page, without  
> any mention of the "Page not found" page.

That's a problem with your system. The validator correctly displays  
redirected URLs.
e.g see:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FConsortium%2FLegal%2Fipr-notice
and look at the Address: Field.

Thank you.
--

-- 
olivier

Re: major web sites (Alexa)

Alright...first, my apologies for the delay on this. Your post was
*only* a month ago now! Took a little time and some wrangling to do this.

Rick Merrill wrote:
>
> Brian wrote:
>>
>> One popularity measure (among many) is Alexa. It has some caveats, but
>> in January I had the validator run through 487 of its Global Top 500
>> list. 32 of those URLs passed validation (6.57%). That is actually
>> considerably higher than the average pass rate I found with the
>> majority of the Open Directory Project URLs (DMoz). I have a complete
>> list of those Alexa 500 that validated, but of the ones you mentioned,
>> only msn.com passed validation.
>
> How about a web page where you Post that complete list - with numbers of
> errors?

Here it is:
http://my.opera.com/operaqa/blog/2008/08/04/alexa-global-top-500-validation-research

Feedback, comments and questions can be made in the blog's comment thread
or here too if they are validator-on-topic.

-Brian

Brian Wilson --------------------------"Those aren't Sex muffins!   -Coach
bloo <at> blooberry.com ---------------------Those aren't Love muffins!
http://www.blooberry.com ---------------Those are just BLOOberry muffins!"
Creator of Index DOT Html/Css: http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/

elements hr in a xhtml basic 1.1 document

What is the correct way to do content negotiation?

Why isn't the HTML validator available for download