Hi!
The documentation for *rewrite-for-session-urls* says that ""This only happens, though, if the body's content type (see CONTENT-TYPE) starts with "text/html""".
XHTML can have other content types, too. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
OK, application/xml and text/xml are a bad choice, because you can't say if it's really a kind of XHTML or just another XML application. You have to parse the content itself for that.
But application/xhtml+xml is OK and recommended.
Regards, Stefan
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:54:42 +0200, Stefan Scholl stesch@no-spoon.de wrote:
The documentation for *rewrite-for-session-urls* says that ""This only happens, though, if the body's content type (see CONTENT-TYPE) starts with "text/html""".
XHTML can have other content types, too. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/
OK, application/xml and text/xml are a bad choice, because you can't say if it's really a kind of XHTML or just another XML application. You have to parse the content itself for that.
But application/xhtml+xml is OK and recommended.
How about this approach?
http://weitz.de/tbnl/#*content-types-for-url-rewrite*
Cheers, Edi.
On 2004-07-19 14:27:51, Edi Weitz wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:54:42 +0200, Stefan Scholl stesch@no-spoon.de wrote:
OK, application/xml and text/xml are a bad choice, because you can't say if it's really a kind of XHTML or just another XML application. You have to parse the content itself for that.
But application/xhtml+xml is OK and recommended.
How about this approach?
Nice. That's perfect.
Heaven knows if the W3C invents new content types for HTML. But I could add "text/plain" for debugging purposes.
Regards, Stefan (aka stesch @ #lisp, FreeNode)
-
Edi Weitz -
Stefan Scholl