Posted by cwdjrxyz on 01/19/06 23:39

Toby Inkster wrote:
> cwdjrxyz wrote:
>
> > I think that Dorayme, in his latest post, may have provided the answer
> > for Safari. It can be forced to go the true xhtml route if one does
> > that in the header/server exchange and allows no other options. This is
> > nearly, but not absolute, evidence that Safari does not provide the
> > mime type application/xhtml+xml as an option
>
> Safari's HTTP Accept header is as follows:
>
> Accept: */*
>
> which leaves it open for pretty much anything!
>
> (Testing Safari 1.3.1.)

Thanks very much Toby. That is consistent with the results obtained for
Safari for the original auto page that uses 4.01 strict if
application/xhtml+xml support is not mentioned by the browser in the
browser/server header exchange and the fact that the Safari could be
forced to accept application/xhtml+xml if no other option is given in
the php include. I hope that I hear from the lady with the Konqueror
again to see if it could be forced to accept application/xhtml+xml.
This leaves the safe option of letting Safari receive html 4.01 strict.
I may look at how difficult and reliable it is to detect Safari, but
this approach is so risky that I am going to be in no hurry to do so. I
doubt if many people, except on a Network where everything can be
controlled, are going to be serving true xhtml to Safari because, to
serve it as application xhtml+xml only, would make the page unusable on
IE6 an some other browsers.

[Back to original message]