Sam Ruby’s Content-Type
June 9th, 2007 • General
Funny how Google (a leader in the Web space) doesn’t recognize Intertwingly’s (a leader in Web standards) Content-Type.
Here’s what the W3C specs say:
‘application/xhtml+XML’ SHOULD be used for serving XHTML documents to XHTML user agents.
— W3C, XHTML Media Types
As far as the specs are concerned, Sam’s blog is sending proper HTTP headers:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 00:10:50 GMT
Server: Apache
Vary: Accept-Encoding,User-Agent
Last-Modified: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:24:16 GMT
ETag: "620747-7c72-d0b09c00"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 31858
X-Pingback: http://intertwingly.net/blog/pingback
Connection: close
**Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml;charset=utf-8**
So why can’t Google recognize the file format?
6 Responses (Add Your Comment)
-
-
I understand the media types document isn’t a standard, but it doesn’t always have to be in order to be widely applied in practice, especially if it makes sense.
Regarding the font-size, I’ve reduced it by 24% of the default em size, which is usually 16px, so the font now is 12px. Here’s why I did it, but I’ll take a closer look again.
Thanks for the tip Jim.
Reply ↵ -
I understand the media types document isn’t a standard, but it doesn’t always have to be in order to be widely applied in practice, especially if it makes sense.
Well sure, but you don’t need to resort to unofficial documents when the real specifications are easily accessible. Don’t base technical decisions on what is essentially hearsay.
Regarding the font-size, I’ve reduced it by 24% of the default em size, which is usually 16px, so the font now is 12px.
No, the font now is 12px for you. You have no idea what font size other people have configured. Hey, maybe I like 12px too, and configured my browser that way. That means you are giving me 9px text. Or maybe I have poor eyesight and increased it to 20px, in which case you’d be giving me text 5px smaller than necessary.
From the linked document:
Something I noticed a while back is if I use 75%, I get a smaller size that I’m quite fond of as a readable small size
If your browser is configured to give you 16px text and you want 12px text, then change your browser settings to give you 12px text. Altering a website design to give you the font size you prefer is like phoning up the television company to tell them to turn the sound down because it’s too loud instead of using your remote control.
Reply ↵ -
you don’t need to resort to unofficial documents when the real specifications are easily accessible
Absolutely, I should noticed that it’s a note rather than a standard. It’s still a spec though.
Regarding the the default font issue. I don’t know if there’s any way to balance default browser values and aesthetics. That’s why I’m using an em-based layout; when you increase the font-size, the whole design grows.
But Jim, I’ve tested the site with so many browsers, I didn’t think the font is too small. If you could send me a screenshot of your window, I’d love to take a look into it.
Since this is my personal site, my design options are very flexible, and all I care about is making sure my those who read it do enjoy it.
Reply ↵ -
Regarding the the default font issue. I don’t know if there’s any way to balance default browser values and aesthetics.
I think this is a false dichotomy. There’s nothing aesthetically wrong with common default font sizes.
I used to think there was, back when I worked at a web design shop where every single design we produced had mandatory tiny fonts by order of the management. I used to think that because I saw tiny fonts on such a regular basis that I got used to it, and anything else looked out of place.
Try an experiment for me. Set up your web browser so that you get normal fonts size for your websites. You don’t have to do it for anybody else, just yourself. Switch back in a month and tell me that tiny fonts look better. My guess is that you’ll have changed your mind.
But Jim, I’ve tested the site with so many browsers, I didn’t think the font is too small. If you could send me a screenshot of your window, I’d love to take a look into it.
What would browser testing or a screenshot accomplish? What might look fine to you on a monitor with a particular DPI a couple of feet away from you might look unreadable to me at a different DPI further away. That’s essentially my point: you have no idea what is readable. Not even with a screenshot showing the precise rendering I get. It’s an impossible thing for a website author to judge.
One of the things you slowly have to learn as a designer is where the limits of a medium are. When you cross the limits, you start making your designs worse, not better. Attempting to control the font size is past the limits of web design, and it always will be. It’s not a technological matter, it’s a human one.
Reply ↵
The document you link to is an informal note that is not endorsed by the W3C and has not passed through its normal process for publishing specifications. It says that it isn’t a specification at the very top of the document.
If you want to refer to specifications for the purpose of determining what font size to use, refer to section 5.1 of the latest edition of XHTML 1.0, RFC 2854 and RFC 3236. Citing the note as a specification is not appropriate.
PS: The size of the fonts on your site give me a headache. Why are you overriding normal font size and reducing it by 24%? That’s a ridiculous font size.