Results of mobile tests

These are the results of five test cases intended for mobile browsers. The purpose is to find out whether mobile browsers actually support XHTML or if they just eat everything as tag soup.

Results. Of 19 browsers, 9 passed 001.htm, all passed 002.htm, 3 passed 003.xht and 004.xht, and all but one passed 005.foo.
Browser 001.htm 002.htm 003.xht 004.xht 005.foo
Default browser for Sprint Toshiba VM 4050 FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Default browser for Nokia 6170 Mobile Phone FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
SIE-C72/16 UP.Browser/7.0.2.2.d.7(GUI) MMP/2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Opera Mini 2.0.3920 (Advanced - MIDP 2) PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Opera/8.01 (J2ME/MIDP; Opera Mini/2.0.4062; en; U; ssr) PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Nokia5140i/2.0 (03.34) Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLD-1.1 FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Blackberry8700/4.1.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100 PASS PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
SonyEricssonZ520a/R3F Browser/SEMC-Browser/4.2 Profiles/MDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0 FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Default browser for Nokia 6102i FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/hspr-H102; Blazer/4.0) 16;320x320 PASS PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Default browser for MotoRazr V3i PASS PASS1 (False) PASS (False) PASS PASS
LGE-VX8100/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.2 (GUI) MMP/2.0 FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
EudoraWeb on Kyocera 7135 with PalmOS 4.1 FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL FAIL
Xiino 3.1.4E on Kyocera 7135 with PalmOS 4.1 PASS PASS FAIL2 FAIL2 PASS
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Series60/3.0 Nokia6630/4.06.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1) FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Default browser for Samsung D500 FAIL PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Opera Mini on D500 PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS
Mozilla/4.0 (PSP (PlayStation Portable); 2.00) PASS PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.1; U; en-us) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413 PASS PASS FAIL FAIL PASS
  1. The default browser for MotoRazr V3i showed a blank page for 002.htm.
  2. Xiino 3.1.4E rejects application/xhtml+xml and promts for an external application. (This is the right thing to do if you don't support XHTML.)

Analysis

The default browser for MotoRazr V3i got false positives for 003.xht and 004.xht; if 003.xht was modified to start with a tag then it would render fine, and 004.xht says "PASS" because <style> is an unrecognized tag. Thus, this demonstrates that the only mobile browser that was tested that supports XHTML is Opera Mini. All browsers tested support HTML, but most aren't quite compatible with desktop browsers in their error handling. All browsers (except EudoraWeb) pay attention to the Content-Type header though, but most seem to think that application/xhtml+xml is equivalent to text/html.

Amusingly, S60 WebKit was hacked to not support XHTML, dispite WebKit actually having support for XHTML.

Conclusion

The conclusion I can draw from this research is that the claim that XHTML would be needed for mobile devices is simply a myth.

Simon Pieters