Presumably IE8 has a long way to go.

Discussion in 'HTML' started by dorayme, Aug 16, 2008.

  1. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    pretty different in how it rendered:

    <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>

    I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    done to forestall it on this layout.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Aug 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme wrote:
    > I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    > pretty different in how it rendered:
    >
    > <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>
    >
    > I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    > have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    > done to forestall it on this layout.
    >

    Thank goodness for

    <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

    or, for use on an entire website, the HTTP header

    X-UA-Compatible: IE=EmulateIE7
    Harlan Messinger, Aug 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dorayme

    +mrcakey Guest

    "Harlan Messinger" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > dorayme wrote:
    >> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was pretty
    >> different in how it rendered:
    >>
    >> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>
    >>
    >> I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    >> have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    >> done to forestall it on this layout.
    >>

    > Thank goodness for
    >
    > <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
    >
    > or, for use on an entire website, the HTTP header
    >
    > X-UA-Compatible: IE=EmulateIE7


    Good find!

    +mrcakey
    +mrcakey, Aug 16, 2008
    #3
  4. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    > > pretty different in how it rendered:
    > >
    > > <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>
    > >
    > > I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    > > have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    > > done to forestall it on this layout.
    > >

    > Thank goodness for
    >
    > <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
    >


    With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment conditional
    fixes all as far as I see.


    > or, for use on an entire website, the HTTP header
    >
    > X-UA-Compatible: IE=EmulateIE7


    Now this is more like what I would want. Where my files using this sort
    of layout are destined I have little control of the public server but I
    can ask the administrators to do something. I might tell them to do what
    you have indicated or I might just stick in the conditional into an
    include. It is a Windows server. (I must try to get this changed at some
    stage, it causes me extra work! I will try to persuade the client to
    host elsewhere)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Aug 17, 2008
    #4
  5. dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    >>> pretty different in how it rendered:
    >>>
    >>> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>
    >>>
    >>> I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    >>> have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    >>> done to forestall it on this layout.
    >>>

    >> Thank goodness for
    >>
    >> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

    >
    > With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    > invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment conditional
    > fixes all as far as I see.


    You're also most welcome to exclude the slash.

    >> or, for use on an entire website, the HTTP header
    >>
    >> X-UA-Compatible: IE=EmulateIE7

    >
    > Now this is more like what I would want. Where my files using this sort
    > of layout are destined I have little control of the public server but I
    > can ask the administrators to do something. I might tell them to do what
    > you have indicated or I might just stick in the conditional into an
    > include.


    This option, I had just come across before mentioning it here and my
    comment just relayed what I'd read. Certainly you can also do this
    per-page. In ASP.NET: Response.AddHeader("X-UA-Compatible",
    "IE=EmulateIE7").

    > It is a Windows server. (I must try to get this changed at some
    > stage, it causes me extra work! I will try to persuade the client to
    > host elsewhere)
    Harlan Messinger, Aug 17, 2008
    #5
  6. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> dorayme wrote:
    > >>> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    > >>> pretty different in how it rendered:
    > >>>
    > >>> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>
    > >>>
    > >>> I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    > >>> have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    > >>> done to forestall it on this layout.
    > >>>
    > >> Thank goodness for
    > >>
    > >> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

    > >
    > > With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    > > invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment conditional
    > > fixes all as far as I see.

    >
    > You're also most welcome to exclude the slash.
    >


    Thank you. I had anticipated this offer - perhaps a little
    presumptively! I see now that I seem not to have said that without the
    slash IE8 does not behave better on my tests. Maybe I was shy of saying
    this because it might reveal too greatly some terrible ignorance.

    You can see my trials at

    <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/>

    And you can see the results via

    <http://browsershots.org>

    I am grateful for your input because it was niggling me about launching
    a new section of a commercial website if it was going to look bad in
    some major browser. I have no idea how popular IE8 is already or whether
    they will fix things. I don't trust MS on IE and my only hope is that we
    have a man on the inside (Gerard Talbot! He has been communicating with
    those guys as I understand it and at least that is cause for hope. In my
    opinion, he should go to whatever meetings he goes to with them,
    equipped with an equaliser like Dirty Harry so they take notice...)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Aug 17, 2008
    #6
  7. dorayme

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Aug 16, 9:31 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >  Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > dorayme wrote:
    > > > In article <>,
    > > >  Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    >
    > > >> dorayme wrote:
    > > >>> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    > > >>> pretty different in how it rendered:

    >
    > > >>> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>

    >
    > > >>> I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    > > >>> have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    > > >>> done to forestall it on this layout.

    >
    > > >> Thank goodness for

    >
    > > >> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

    >
    > > > With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    > > > invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment conditional
    > > > fixes all as far as I see.

    >
    > > You're also most welcome to exclude the slash.

    >
    > Thank you. I had anticipated this offer - perhaps a little
    > presumptively! I see now that I seem not to have said that without the
    > slash IE8 does not behave better on my tests. Maybe I was shy of saying
    > this because it might reveal too greatly some terrible ignorance.
    >
    > You can see my trials at
    >
    > <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/>
    >
    > And you can see the results via
    >
    > <http://browsershots.org>


    Thanks for the link to browshots.org. Since it has so many browsers
    and 3 OSs I decided to see which browsers on which OSs can handle true
    xhtml served properly as application/xhtml+xml. I used my page served
    as true xhtml at http://www.cwdjr.info/test/formtestX.xhtml for the
    test. If the page works , you should see a form box which works, but
    takes you nowhere. I only tested the most recent version of a browser
    on an OS when more than one was available.

    Linux OS Browsers That Support True Xhtml:
    Konqueror 3.5 ; Firefox 3.0.1 ; Opera 9.5.1 ; Epiphany 2.22.3 ; Flock
    2.0 ; Galeon 2.0.6 ; Iceape 1.1.11 ; Iceweasel 3.0 ; Kazehakase
    0.5.5 ; Minefield 3.1 ; Shivetoke 3.1 .

    MAC OS Browsers That Support True Xhtml:
    Safari 3.1 ; Firefox 3.0

    Windows OS Browsers That Support True Xhtml:
    Minefield 3.1 ; K Melon 1.1.6 ; Firefox 3.0 ; Flock 2.0 ; Opera 9.51;
    Safari for Windows 3.1 ; Seamonkey 2.0

    Non-Support of true Xhtml:
    IE7 and all lower version will not support true xhtml. The Dillo 0.8.6
    Browser on a Linux OS shows a blank page. The IE8 browser would not
    load my page, even after extending the time to over 1 hour.

    So far as I can tell, IE8 has not been released yet as an official
    stable version, and the Windows download site for their XP OS, at
    least in the US, is not yet offering IE8. Thus there could still be
    changes in the final version. Also I would want to view my page
    directly on a computer that had IE 8 installed. But even just
    considering the IE 7, it is apparent that IE is out of tune with
    nearly all other recent popular browsers, and many rather obscure
    ones, when it comes to support of true xhtml. I can think of only 2
    possible reasons for this. 1. The programmers at Microsoft who write
    browser programs are rather stupid or 2. The administration at
    Microsoft does not care about standards support or even perhaps does
    not want it, even though they likely donate more funds to the W3C than
    anyone else. Can anyone think of another reason why Microsoft has been
    so tardy in true xhtml support?
    cwdjrxyz, Aug 17, 2008
    #7
  8. dorayme

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >
    > > dorayme wrote:
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> dorayme wrote:
    > > >>> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    > > >>> pretty different in how it rendered:
    > > >>>
    > > >>> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>
    > > >>>
    > > >>> I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    > > >>> have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    > > >>> done to forestall it on this layout.
    > > >>>
    > > >> Thank goodness for
    > > >>
    > > >> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
    > > >
    > > > With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    > > > invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment conditional
    > > > fixes all as far as I see.

    > >
    > > You're also most welcome to exclude the slash.
    > >

    >
    > Thank you. I had anticipated this offer - perhaps a little
    > presumptively! I see now that I seem not to have said that without the
    > slash IE8 does not behave better on my tests. Maybe I was shy of saying
    > this because it might reveal too greatly some terrible ignorance.
    >
    > You can see my trials at
    >
    > <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/>
    >
    > And you can see the results via
    >
    > <http://browsershots.org>
    >
    > I am grateful for your input because it was niggling me about launching
    > a new section of a commercial website if it was going to look bad in
    > some major browser. I have no idea how popular IE8 is already or whether
    > they will fix things. I don't trust MS on IE and my only hope is that we
    > have a man on the inside (Gerard Talbot! He has been communicating with
    > those guys as I understand it and at least that is cause for hope. In my
    > opinion, he should go to whatever meetings he goes to with them,
    > equipped with an equaliser like Dirty Harry so they take notice...)
    >

    Hi dorayme.
    Mate far as I am aware I don't think IE 8 is out of beta yet. So it
    might be a while before all the bugs are sorted out.
    Or perhaps I should write, it might be a while before all the
    "features" are added.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Aug 17, 2008
    #8
  9. dorayme

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > On Aug 16, 9:31�pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > �Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > dorayme wrote:
    > > > > In article <>,
    > > > > �Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > >
    > > > >> dorayme wrote:
    > > > >>> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    > > > >>> pretty different in how it rendered:

    > >
    > > > >>> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>

    > >
    > > > >>> I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    > > > >>> have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    > > > >>> done to forestall it on this layout.

    > >
    > > > >> Thank goodness for

    > >
    > > > >> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

    > >
    > > > > With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    > > > > invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment conditional
    > > > > fixes all as far as I see.

    > >
    > > > You're also most welcome to exclude the slash.

    > >
    > > Thank you. I had anticipated this offer - perhaps a little
    > > presumptively! I see now that I seem not to have said that without the
    > > slash IE8 does not behave better on my tests. Maybe I was shy of saying
    > > this because it might reveal too greatly some terrible ignorance.
    > >
    > > You can see my trials at
    > >
    > > <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/>
    > >
    > > And you can see the results via
    > >
    > > <http://browsershots.org>

    >
    > Thanks for the link to browshots.org. Since it has so many browsers
    > and 3 OSs I decided to see which browsers on which OSs can handle true
    > xhtml served properly as application/xhtml+xml. I used my page served
    > as true xhtml at http://www.cwdjr.info/test/formtestX.xhtml for the
    > test. If the page works , you should see a form box which works, but
    > takes you nowhere. I only tested the most recent version of a browser
    > on an OS when more than one was available.
    >
    > Linux OS Browsers That Support True Xhtml:
    > Konqueror 3.5 ; Firefox 3.0.1 ; Opera 9.5.1 ; Epiphany 2.22.3 ; Flock
    > 2.0 ; Galeon 2.0.6 ; Iceape 1.1.11 ; Iceweasel 3.0 ; Kazehakase
    > 0.5.5 ; Minefield 3.1 ; Shivetoke 3.1 .
    >
    > MAC OS Browsers That Support True Xhtml:
    > Safari 3.1 ; Firefox 3.0
    >
    > Windows OS Browsers That Support True Xhtml:
    > Minefield 3.1 ; K Melon 1.1.6 ; Firefox 3.0 ; Flock 2.0 ; Opera 9.51;
    > Safari for Windows 3.1 ; Seamonkey 2.0
    >
    > Non-Support of true Xhtml:
    > IE7 and all lower version will not support true xhtml. The Dillo 0.8.6
    > Browser on a Linux OS shows a blank page. The IE8 browser would not
    > load my page, even after extending the time to over 1 hour.
    >
    > So far as I can tell, IE8 has not been released yet as an official
    > stable version, and the Windows download site for their XP OS, at
    > least in the US, is not yet offering IE8. Thus there could still be
    > changes in the final version. Also I would want to view my page
    > directly on a computer that had IE 8 installed. But even just
    > considering the IE 7, it is apparent that IE is out of tune with
    > nearly all other recent popular browsers, and many rather obscure
    > ones, when it comes to support of true xhtml. I can think of only 2
    > possible reasons for this. 1. The programmers at Microsoft who write
    > browser programs are rather stupid or 2. The administration at
    > Microsoft does not care about standards support or even perhaps does
    > not want it, even though they likely donate more funds to the W3C than
    > anyone else. Can anyone think of another reason why Microsoft has been
    > so tardy in true xhtml support?

    Cause it a waste of time and money, especially when HTML 4.01 Strict
    works fine. You can also use XML to create HTML so that argument is
    also not a good one.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Aug 17, 2008
    #9
  10. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    Chaddy2222 <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    ....
    > > I am grateful for your input because it was niggling me about launching
    > > a new section of a commercial website if it was going to look bad in
    > > some major browser. I have no idea how popular IE8 is already or whether
    > > they will fix things. I don't trust MS on IE
    > >

    > Hi dorayme.
    > Mate far as I am aware I don't think IE 8 is out of beta yet. So it
    > might be a while before all the bugs are sorted out.
    > Or perhaps I should write, it might be a while before all the
    > "features" are added.


    Thanks Chaddy, I am relieved to hear confirmation of this. Since the
    meta avoider has now come to my attention via Harlan, and at least
    browsershot screenshot tells me it works, I probably will chuck it in
    with a conditional for ie8 (via an include for other things to make it
    easy).

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Aug 17, 2008
    #10
  11. dorayme

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Aug 17, 6:35 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    >
    >
    >  Chaddy2222 <> wrote:
    > > dorayme wrote:
    > > > In article <>,
    > > >  Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > ...
    > > > I am grateful for your input because it was niggling me about launching
    > > > a new section of a commercial website if it was going to look bad in
    > > > some major browser. I have no idea how popular IE8 is already or whether
    > > > they will fix things. I don't trust MS on IE

    >
    > > Hi dorayme.
    > > Mate far as I am aware I don't think IE 8 is out of beta yet. So it
    > > might be a while before all the bugs are sorted out.
    > > Or perhaps I should write, it might be a while before all the
    > > "features" are added.

    >
    > Thanks Chaddy, I am relieved to hear confirmation of this. Since the
    > meta avoider has now come to my attention via Harlan, and at least
    > browsershot screenshot tells me it works, I probably will chuck it in
    > with a conditional for ie8 (via an include for other things to make it
    > easy).
    >

    That sounds like the way to go. I use PHP includes for just about
    everything now a days.
    In fact I am not quite sure how I lived before discovering PHP
    includes, or PHP in general really.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
    Chaddy2222, Aug 17, 2008
    #11
  12. dorayme

    Mark A. Boyd Guest

    cwdjrxyz posted in alt.html:

    > So far as I can tell, IE8 has not been released yet as an official
    > stable version, and the Windows download site for their XP OS, at
    > least in the US, is not yet offering IE8. Thus there could still be
    > changes in the final version. Also I would want to view my page
    > directly on a computer that had IE 8 installed. But even just
    > considering the IE 7, it is apparent that IE is out of tune with
    > nearly all other recent popular browsers, and many rather obscure
    > ones, when it comes to support of true xhtml. I can think of only 2
    > possible reasons for this. 1. The programmers at Microsoft who write
    > browser programs are rather stupid or 2. The administration at
    > Microsoft does not care about standards support or even perhaps does
    > not want it, even though they likely donate more funds to the W3C than
    > anyone else. Can anyone think of another reason why Microsoft has been
    > so tardy in true xhtml support?


    Or 3. MS buearocracy gets in the way of nearly everything the programmers
    want/need to do.

    I suspect a combination of 2 and 3 with *heavy* emphasis on 2.

    Just look how long it's taken them to support 32bit .png files in IE. More
    than a decade.



    --
    Mark A. Boyd
    Keep-On-Learnin' :)
    Mark A. Boyd, Aug 17, 2008
    #12
  13. dorayme

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 17 Aug 2008, "Mark A. Boyd" <> wrote:

    > cwdjrxyz posted in alt.html:
    >
    >> So far as I can tell, IE8 has not been released yet as an official
    >> stable version, and the Windows download site for their XP OS, at
    >> least in the US, is not yet offering IE8. Thus there could still be
    >> changes in the final version. Also I would want to view my page
    >> directly on a computer that had IE 8 installed. But even just
    >> considering the IE 7, it is apparent that IE is out of tune with
    >> nearly all other recent popular browsers, and many rather obscure
    >> ones, when it comes to support of true xhtml. I can think of only 2
    >> possible reasons for this. 1. The programmers at Microsoft who write
    >> browser programs are rather stupid or 2. The administration at
    >> Microsoft does not care about standards support or even perhaps does
    >> not want it, even though they likely donate more funds to the W3C than
    >> anyone else. Can anyone think of another reason why Microsoft has been
    >> so tardy in true xhtml support?

    >
    > Or 3. MS buearocracy gets in the way of nearly everything the programmers
    > want/need to do.
    >
    > I suspect a combination of 2 and 3 with *heavy* emphasis on 2.
    >
    > Just look how long it's taken them to support 32bit .png files in IE. More
    > than a decade.


    Whatever the reason, when you lose touch with what the people want, you're
    headed for doom. Microsoft's biggest problem is their aloofness.

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Great Sights and Sounds
    Fmail for p/w for Specials
    Neredbojias, Aug 17, 2008
    #13
  14. dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> dorayme wrote:
    >>>>> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    >>>>> pretty different in how it rendered:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    >>>>> have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    >>>>> done to forestall it on this layout.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Thank goodness for
    >>>>
    >>>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
    >>> With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    >>> invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment conditional
    >>> fixes all as far as I see.

    >> You're also most welcome to exclude the slash.
    >>

    >
    > Thank you. I had anticipated this offer - perhaps a little
    > presumptively! I see now that I seem not to have said that without the
    > slash IE8 does not behave better on my tests. Maybe I was shy of saying
    > this because it might reveal too greatly some terrible ignorance.
    >
    > You can see my trials at
    >
    > <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/>


    I just tried these out in IE8 and found they were identical--and looked
    fine, as far as I could tell. Then I looked at the source code and
    realized I'd forgotten to mention one important point: IE requires that
    the meta tag be the very first tag to appear in the head section of the
    document. Egotistical little tag, isn't it?
    Harlan Messinger, Aug 18, 2008
    #14
  15. dorayme

    BootNic Guest

    On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:07:02 -0400
    Harlan Messinger <> wrote in:
    <>

    > dorayme wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> dorayme wrote:
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> dorayme wrote:
    >>>>>> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    >>>>>> pretty different in how it rendered:

    [snip]
    >>>>>
    >>>>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />


    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc288325(VS.85).aspx

    [snip]
    >> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/>

    >
    > I just tried these out in IE8 and found they were identical--and looked
    > fine, as far as I could tell. Then I looked at the source code and
    > realized I'd forgotten to mention one important point: IE requires that
    > the meta tag be the very first tag to appear in the head section of the
    > document. Egotistical little tag, isn't it?


    I think it is really just too early to try and make IE 8 work. It's
    just still beta and still too buggy.

    At most I would suggest if one has conditional comments, to limit the
    comments to [if lte IE 7], that is if there are any [if IE] then change
    them to [if lte IE 7].

    --

    BootNic Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:01 am
    I thought you should know that you didn't invent anything new.
    *Bergamot*

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkipjt8ACgkQylMUzZO6jeI2ygCeOlWtye78wVFoScPfE1B9aLuX
    FuoAniQBPn7/JFoJafzcSR3iofI5P6qq
    =A4l/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    BootNic, Aug 18, 2008
    #15
  16. dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> I was getting some browsershots of a page and noticed that IE8 was
    >>> pretty different in how it rendered:
    >>>
    >>> <http://dorayme.890m.com/alt/ie8/ie8.html>
    >>>
    >>> I was expecting IE6 to play silly buggers but it does not do too bad. I
    >>> have not looked at why IE8 might be doing what it does or what might be
    >>> done to forestall it on this layout.
    >>>

    >> Thank goodness for
    >>
    >> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
    >>

    >
    > With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    > invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment conditional
    > fixes all as far as I see.


    Wait--why is it invalid? Both HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict
    provide for a meta tag with both http-equiv and content attributes.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-META
    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-strict.dtd_meta
    Harlan Messinger, Aug 18, 2008
    #16
  17. Harlan Messinger <> writes:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thank goodness for
    >>>
    >>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

    >>
    >> With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    >> invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment
    >> conditional fixes all as far as I see.

    >
    > Wait--why is it invalid?


    As I'm sure you're aware, we can't properly serve XHTML to IE. IE will
    parse this as HTML, in which the slash is invalid.

    sherm--

    --
    My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherm Pendley, Aug 18, 2008
    #17
  18. Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Harlan Messinger <> writes:
    >
    >> dorayme wrote:
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Thank goodness for
    >>>>
    >>>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
    >>> With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    >>> invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment
    >>> conditional fixes all as far as I see.

    >> Wait--why is it invalid?

    >
    > As I'm sure you're aware, we can't properly serve XHTML to IE. IE will
    > parse this as HTML, in which the slash is invalid.
    >


    Well, yes, but we're mixing modes here. The browser neither knows nor
    cares if the code is valid, and if the browser is treating the code as
    HTML, then the trailing slash will be ignored just fine, as it will be
    treated as a bad attribute, and the spec says the user agent should
    gracefully ignore a bad attribute.

    As for validating the code whether to satisfy oneself or to fulfill some
    requirement or to follow good practice, if you want it to validate as
    HTML, drop the slash, and if you want it to validate as XHTML, leave the
    slash in. Either way, the tag will not prevent the document from passing
    validation.
    Harlan Messinger, Aug 18, 2008
    #18
  19. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > > Harlan Messinger <> writes:
    > >
    > >> dorayme wrote:
    > >>> In article <>,
    > >>> Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> Thank goodness for
    > >>>>
    > >>>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
    > >>> With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    > >>> invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment
    > >>> conditional fixes all as far as I see.
    > >> Wait--why is it invalid?

    > >
    > > As I'm sure you're aware, we can't properly serve XHTML to IE. IE will
    > > parse this as HTML, in which the slash is invalid.
    > >

    >
    > Well, yes, but we're mixing modes here. The browser neither knows nor
    > cares if the code is valid, and if the browser is treating the code as
    > HTML, then the trailing slash will be ignored just fine, as it will be
    > treated as a bad attribute, and the spec says the user agent should
    > gracefully ignore a bad attribute.
    >
    > As for validating the code whether to satisfy oneself or to fulfill some
    > requirement or to follow good practice, if you want it to validate as
    > HTML, drop the slash, and if you want it to validate as XHTML, leave the
    > slash in. Either way, the tag will not prevent the document from passing
    > validation.


    Before your post saying "IE requires that the meta tag be the very first
    tag to appear in the head section of the document." my tests showed my
    original test page (in 4.01 Strict) with your suggested tag, displayed
    properly in IE8 when the slash was there but *not* without it. I also
    noticed validators being unhappy. With the slash, and it *not* being the
    the very first tag, it displayed in IE 8 like in IE7 or FF, at least in
    my tests via browsershots.

    The validation is no problem as I mentioned in a later post. What I have
    not done yet is test to see if a slashless tag that is the first tag
    works in IE8.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Aug 19, 2008
    #19
  20. dorayme

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Aug 18, 7:31 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >  Harlan Messinger <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > > > Harlan Messinger <> writes:

    >
    > > >> dorayme wrote:
    > > >>> In article <>,
    > > >>>  Harlan Messinger <> wrote:

    >
    > > >>>> Thank goodness for

    >
    > > >>>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />
    > > >>> With the slash, yes, it is fine except for the niggle over formal
    > > >>> invalidity. Putting your meta statement into an IE comment
    > > >>> conditional fixes all as far as I see.
    > > >> Wait--why is it invalid?

    >
    > > > As I'm sure you're aware, we can't properly serve XHTML to IE. IE will
    > > > parse this as HTML, in which the slash is invalid.

    >
    > > Well, yes, but we're mixing modes here. The browser neither knows nor
    > > cares if the code is valid, and if the browser is treating the code as
    > > HTML, then the trailing slash will be ignored just fine, as it will be
    > > treated as a bad attribute, and the spec says the user agent should
    > > gracefully ignore a bad attribute.

    >
    > > As for validating the code whether to satisfy oneself or to fulfill some
    > > requirement or to follow good practice, if you want it to validate as
    > > HTML, drop the slash, and if you want it to validate as XHTML, leave the
    > > slash in. Either way, the tag will not prevent the document from passing
    > > validation.

    >
    > Before your post saying "IE requires that the meta tag be the very first
    > tag to appear in the head section of the document." my tests showed my
    > original test page (in 4.01 Strict) with your suggested tag, displayed
    > properly in IE8 when the slash was there but *not* without it. I also
    > noticed validators being unhappy. With the slash, and it *not* being the
    > the very first tag, it displayed in IE 8 like in IE7 or FF, at least in
    > my tests via browsershots.
    >
    > The validation is no problem as I mentioned in a later post. What I have
    > not done yet is test to see if a slashless tag that is the first tag
    > works in IE8.



    The meta must be self closed (<blah />) in xhtml as must img etc,
    since everything must be closed in xhtml. If you serve the xhtml page
    properly as application/xhtml+xml the xml parser of the browser rather
    than the html one is used. Then the usual response is to give you an
    error message rather than a view of the page. If you mis-serve an
    xhtml page as html (text/html) then the self closing tag is unknown to
    html. However the html parser of the browser that is used in such a
    case lets you get away with much sloppy and invalid code. Some may
    result in error messages or warnings when you validate at W3C, but not
    an error message from the browser parser instead of a view of the
    page. An html page can be, and often is, extremely sloppy with dozens
    of validation errors, but it can still be viewed, although it may not
    be exactly what you had in mind. Now when it comes to Microsoftese,
    one can hardly be surprised at any response on an IE browser.

    If you are going to use a php include for header exchange of some
    sort, it must be at the very top of the page. If this include is used,
    you may specify most things you would use meta tags for in it and not
    include meta tags on the page, but usually you can do what is most
    convenient for you.
    cwdjrxyz, Aug 19, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Marsaglia

    Assigning unsigned long to unsigned long long

    George Marsaglia, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    674
    Eric Sosman
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. Daniel Rudy

    unsigned long long int to long double

    Daniel Rudy, Sep 19, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,186
    Peter Shaggy Haywood
    Sep 20, 2005
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    246
  4. jab3
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    142
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Mar 7, 2006
  5. cecile

    ie8!=ie8

    cecile, May 24, 2010, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    184
    David Mark
    May 24, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page