Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Neo Geshel, Apr 20, 2007.

  1. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
    ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
    INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
    RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
    CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.

    Greetings!

    I am in the process of creating a template for a site. The site will be
    *true* XHTML 1.1. That is, it will validate as XHTML 1.1 on all pages,
    it will make use of the UTF-8 character set, and it will (whenever
    possible) be sent out with a mime-type of application/xhtml+xml. To
    force standards-compliant mode in Internet Explorer, I am also making
    use of the JavaScript IE7 compliance patch (http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/).

    The problem that I am experiencing is with Internet Explorer. As anyone
    with any serious Borg-like tendencies (i.e., the “pursuit of
    perfectionâ€) will tell you, Internet Explorer is incapable of handling
    application/xhtml+xml; treating it instead as a downloadable file. There
    is a workaround, however. XHTML pages *can* be treated as
    application/xml in a pinch (it is not *dis*allowed, just discouraged;
    unlike text/html which is disallowed for XHTML), and IE *does* recognize
    this format. However, to prevent IE from either downloading it or
    displaying the XML tree, one has to apply a very small XSLT transformation.

    The problem that I have run across is that IE (with the version in
    question depending on the machine) will throw an XML parsing error due
    to the standard XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE:

    <output>
    The XML page cannot be displayed
    Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error
    and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Parameter entity must be defined before it is used. Error processing
    resource 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd...

    %xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
    -^
    </output>

    Now, on *my* machine, I have reworked the resulting output so that IE 6
    and lower does not throw this error, despite being fed a normal DOCTYPE.
    However, IE7 *does* have to be fed a *non-standard* DOCTYPE to avoid
    throwing this error.

    Since IE 6 and lower is being fed a normal XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE, I would
    like to know if this error appears on any other person’s machine, when
    they are using a version of IE less than 7. If you get this error with
    your version of IE, I would like to know the following:

    • Your version of IE
    • Your OS (32-bit/64-bit), including service packs
    • Your version of MSXMLS installed
    • And the error message, if it differs significantly from above

    Any and all comments about the *design* would also be appreciated.

    The template can be found at http://www.bannerswarm.net/template.php

    Please also note that the template is still under construction. While
    the DOCTYPE in question will not change, the content and layout may
    change suddenly and without warning.

    TIA
    ...Geshel
    --
    *********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    *********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 20, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Neo Geshel <> writes:

    > NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
    > ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
    > INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
    > RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
    > CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.


    You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
    read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
    that way.

    Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?

    My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
    Problem solved.

    Or, if you insist on using XHTML in spite of its many well-known problems,
    don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
    on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
    you how to avoid those problems in the first place.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >
    >> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
    >> ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
    >> INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
    >> RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
    >> CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.

    >
    > You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
    > read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
    > that way.


    Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
    years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
    preferable than multi-posting.

    You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
    would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be unable
    to see answers to the same post in another NG.

    > Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?


    It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,
    especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
    tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I clearly
    stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.

    And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the more
    people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated that I
    discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my attempt to
    “focus†people.

    > My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
    > Problem solved.


    I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode†rendering
    differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.

    > Or, if you insist on using XHTML in spite of its many well-known problems,


    Its *many* well-know problems? I know of only two problems - Internet
    Explorer’s inability to handle application/xhtml+xml, and (by proxy)
    IE’s “quirks mode†problems with the XML Prologue (which can be fixed by
    getting it to conduct an XSLT transformation on a document served up as
    application/xml).

    Otherwise, XHTML 1.1 works just fine for me.

    > don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
    > on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
    > you how to avoid those problems in the first place.


    Confusing cause and effect, are we? Having trouble with temporal
    effects? You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one
    has *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet. Try to
    avoid time-travel in the future, k? Pardon the pun.

    Cheers.
    ...Geshel
    --
    *********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    *********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 21, 2007
    #3
  4. Neo Geshel

    John Hosking Guest

    Neo Geshel wrote:
    > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >
    >> Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >>
    >>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ

    posts by arrogant bastards who think they're better than mere humans.

    >>
    >> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
    >> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
    >> that way.

    >
    > Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
    > years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
    > preferable than multi-posting.


    You are not excused to do something stupid and rude by threatening to do
    something even more stupid and rude. And if you've really got 16 years
    of experience of using the Internet, maybe you'd know how to narrow down
    appropriate NGs. Or maybe that 16 years of Internet experience includes
    only 16 minutes of USENET experience?

    >
    > You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
    > would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be unable
    > to see answers to the same post in another NG.


    Um, thanks, but we already know what's wrong with multi-posting. What'd
    you do, just Google this up in the last half-hour?

    >> Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?

    >
    >
    > It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,


    ....and yet, you came here; what's that say about you?

    > especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
    > tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I clearly
    > stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.
    >
    > And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the more
    > people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated that I
    > discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my attempt to
    > “focus†people.


    Too bad you don't have a two-by-four you can whack us with, or maybe a
    Taser; that'd get our attention. Pity you have to resort to such crude
    means as using words and ALL CAPS.

    >
    >> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
    >> Problem solved.

    >
    >
    > I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode†rendering
    > differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.


    Then induce *standards* mode. Combine this with Sherm's suggestion and
    (Please pay attention here; I WANT YOU TO *FOCUS*) you get HTML in
    standards mode.

    >
    > You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one
    > has *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet.


    I suggest you not expect a long line of helpful folks. Dearie.

    --
    John
     
    John Hosking, Apr 21, 2007
    #4
  5. Neo Geshel <> writes:

    > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >> Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >>
    >>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
    >>> ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
    >>> INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
    >>> RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
    >>> CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.

    >>
    >> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
    >> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
    >> that way.

    >
    > Would you rather I multi-post?


    No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
    in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.

    >> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
    >> Problem solved.

    >
    > I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode†rendering
    > differences between browsers


    This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
    you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
    that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.

    >> don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
    >> on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
    >> you how to avoid those problems in the first place.

    >
    > Confusing cause and effect, are we?


    No, "we" aren't. You seriously think you're the first person to try this?
    Do you think that the advice given to everyone else who has tried it will
    be any different for you?

    Get over yourself and type "XHTML" into a Google Groups search. Then read
    and learn.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 21, 2007
    #5
  6. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >
    >> Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>> Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
    >>>> ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
    >>>> INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
    >>>> RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
    >>>> CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.
    >>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
    >>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
    >>> that way.

    >> Would you rather I multi-post?

    >
    > No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
    > in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.


    okay, .misc was useless. I agree. But .site-design was chosen because,
    had you actually read to the end of the post, you would have seen that I
    am also requesting design critiques.

    But alt.html is one of the busiest NG for html/xhtml. And looking for a
    relevant response always boils down to the law of averages.

    As for both multiposting *and* crossposting being inappropriate, let’s
    see what Wikipedia says:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

    Hmm.... I appear to be a rather good Netcitizen when it comes to
    multi/crossposting. If I were to drop the .misc, then all of the other
    NG’s would be on-topic for my *original* post. In fact, I could probably
    have added alt.html.critique, due to my request for a design critique at
    the end of the post.

    >>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
    >>> Problem solved.

    >> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode†rendering
    >> differences between browsers

    >
    > This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
    > you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
    > that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.


    There is no DTD that can, by itself, do as good a job as { XHTML 1.1 DTD
    + [application/xml for IE | application/xhtml+xml for everything else] +
    XML Prolog [ + XSLT Transformation for IE] } across the “big three†of
    IE, Firefox and Opera.

    Besides, I have, at least on my own machine, achieved “purityâ€. I have
    managed to implement a perfect XHTML 1.1 page, conforming to all of the
    XHTML 1.1 specs, that works across both IE and Mozilla/Opera.

    However, because I have multiple copies of IE on my machine (from v3 to
    v7), I am unsure if my copies of [5 <= IE < 7] are providing accurate
    results, and all the other WinDoze machines available to me are XP
    boxen, and those have already upgraded to IE 7. Hence my request for
    field results from other people using [5 <= IE < 7], which was the *only
    thing* I actually requested in my post. You would have realized this,
    had you actually taken the time to read the entire post.

    Should I start spoon-feeding the Usenet community the specifics of what
    I look for? Is it really that hard to properly read a post before
    answering??

    >>> don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
    >>> on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
    >>> you how to avoid those problems in the first place.

    >> Confusing cause and effect, are we?

    >
    > No, "we" aren't. You seriously think you're the first person to try this?
    > Do you think that the advice given to everyone else who has tried it will
    > be any different for you?


    No, but I make it a point to mention what I have already tried, what I
    have discounted because I am not going in that direction, and what my
    objectives are. The problem I run into is that people tend to answer my
    posts with advice that mirrors things I have clearly mentioned that I
    have already done; as if they failed to read the whole post to begin
    with. Hence, my attempt to “focus†readers into the same direction that
    I am attempting to go.

    > Get over yourself and type "XHTML" into a Google Groups search. Then read
    > and learn.


    I wasn’t looking for advice. I had clearly stated in my post that I was
    looking for *field results* from the link I posted. I wanted to see if
    people managed to run into any errors that I haven’t been able to.

    To wit: The site works just fine with [5 <= IE < 7] on my machine. Does
    it work fine on your copy of [5 <= IE < 7] too? If yes, ignore post and
    move on. If no, tell me (along with specifics), so I know that there is
    at least *one* person out there that has a problem.

    Or in other words, RTFP.

    Cheers.
    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 21, 2007
    #6
  7. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    John Hosking wrote:
    > Neo Geshel wrote:
    >> Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>
    >>> Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ

    > posts by arrogant bastards who think they're better than mere humans.
    >
    >>>
    >>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
    >>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
    >>> that way.

    >>
    >> Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
    >> years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
    >> preferable than multi-posting.

    >
    > You are not excused to do something stupid and rude by threatening to do
    > something even more stupid and rude. And if you've really got 16 years
    > of experience of using the Internet, maybe you'd know how to narrow down
    > appropriate NGs. Or maybe that 16 years of Internet experience includes
    > only 16 minutes of USENET experience?
    >
    >>
    >> You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
    >> would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be
    >> unable to see answers to the same post in another NG.

    >
    > Um, thanks, but we already know what's wrong with multi-posting. What'd
    > you do, just Google this up in the last half-hour?


    No, it was an attempt to contrast what would be, at the most, a minor
    gaffe (when cross-posting incorrectly), with a major faux-pas
    (multi-posting). Cross-posting, when done correctly and in moderation,
    is a healthy way of posting on Usenet. It only becomes damaging when
    there are excessive (5+) groups targeted, and when most groups (if not
    all) are completely off-topic with the content of the post. Neither case
    matches my method of cross-posting.

    But hey, if you really want to learn about cross-posting and
    multi-posting *yourself*, here’s the article I found most succinct:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

    Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
    cross-posting.

    >>> Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?

    >>
    >>
    >> It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,

    >
    > ...and yet, you came here; what's that say about you?


    And all you provide is ridicule and sarcasm. What does that say about you?

    >> especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
    >> tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I
    >> clearly stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.
    >>
    >> And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the
    >> more people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated
    >> that I discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my
    >> attempt to “focus†people.

    >
    > Too bad you don't have a two-by-four you can whack us with, or maybe a
    > Taser; that'd get our attention. Pity you have to resort to such crude
    > means as using words and ALL CAPS.


    I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
    *before* answering. Tried it for the first time today, will see how it
    ends up. If I actually get some *field results* (the objective of my
    post, had anyone actually read it), then I might consider using such a
    “focusing†method again. If I get no on-topic and appropriate replies,
    then obviously, I will abandon that method.

    >>
    >>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
    >>> Problem solved.

    >>
    >>
    >> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode†rendering
    >> differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.

    >
    > Then induce *standards* mode. Combine this with Sherm's suggestion and
    > (Please pay attention here; I WANT YOU TO *FOCUS*) you get HTML in
    > standards mode.


    And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
    me, on my own machine. I have gotten everything to work perfectly, In
    full “standards compliance†mode, to boot. My post was about getting
    *field results* from anyone who can view the link with [5 <= IE < 7]
    that is not multi-installed beside IE 7.

    Or didn’t you read that far?

    >> You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one has
    >> *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet.

    >
    > I suggest you not expect a long line of helpful folks. Dearie.


    Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 21, 2007
    #7
  8. Neo Geshel <> writes:

    > Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >> Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
    >>>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
    >>>> that way.
    >>> Would you rather I multi-post?

    >>
    >> No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
    >> in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.

    >
    > okay, .misc was useless. I agree. But .site-design was chosen because,
    > had you actually read to the end of the post, you would have seen that
    > I am also requesting design critiques.


    I did read the whole post. Why would I respond to something I hadn't read?
    You asked for advice about technical problems you're having with XHTML, not
    about the layout, navigability, color palette, or other design issues.

    > But alt.html is one of the busiest NG for html/xhtml.


    I didn't say it wasn't busy, I said it was useless. Alt.html is where amateurs
    go where they can feed of one another's ignorance without being interrupted by
    facts and good advice.

    Come to think of it, the advice you'd get there is probably exactly what you'd
    call "proper" - workarounds and hacks that compensate to varying degrees for a
    basically flawed idea, with no one pointing out to you that it'd be much easier
    to simply avoid the problem in the first place.

    >>>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
    >>>> Problem solved.
    >>> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode†rendering
    >>> differences between browsers

    >>
    >> This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
    >> you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
    >> that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.

    >
    > There is no DTD that can, by itself, do as good a job as { XHTML 1.1
    > DTD + [application/xml for IE | application/xhtml+xml for everything
    > else] + XML Prolog [ + XSLT Transformation for IE] } across the “big
    > three†of IE, Firefox and Opera.


    First you come here talking of the difficulties your "solution" is causing
    you, now you're claiming it does "as good a job" of avoiding quirks mode as
    the recommended solution. Make up your mind.

    Plain HTML with a DTD that triggers standards-mode requires no browser
    sniffing, no games with the MIME type, and no XSLT transforms to make it
    work with IE. Something that does require you to jump through these hoops
    is most certainly *not* doing as good a job.

    > Should I start spoon-feeding the Usenet community the specifics of
    > what I look for? Is it really that hard to properly read a post before
    > answering??


    I know what you're looking for - you're looking for the magic silver bullet
    that will make XHTML work perfectly for every browser.

    There is none. Get over it.

    > Hence, my attempt to “focus†readers into the same direction
    > that I am attempting to go.


    You are going in the wrong direction; no amount of "focus" will change that.

    > I wasn’t looking for advice.


    Too bad. This is usenet - you get advice whether you want it or not. One
    would think, in all those many years of experience you claim to have, you
    would have learned that.

    > Or in other words, RTFP.


    I did read it. I'm just not the slightest bit interested in helping you jump
    through the hoops you're creating for yourself with your stubborn insistence
    on using XHTML. It offers no benefits to you or the end user, and (as you've
    discovered) cannot be delivered in a reliably compatible fashion.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 21, 2007
    #8
  9. Neo Geshel <> writes:

    > Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
    > cross-posting.


    You were off-topic in two of the four groups you posted to.

    > I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
    > *before* answering.


    Being polite works well for that. Much better, in fact, than shouting
    at and insulting the people whose attention you're hoping to retain.

    > And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
    > me, on my own machine.


    Because first, it's not backwards. It's still the standard, and XHTML
    hasn't yet gotten to the point where it's reliably compatible.

    And second, the point is that, however well XHTML may work on your own
    machine, there are a *lot* of other machines out there on which it
    does not work, and won't in the forseeable future.

    > Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.


    Oh, so you get to decide when the thread's over now, and who's allowed
    to post to it? Who made you King of Usenet?

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 21, 2007
    #9
  10. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > First you come here talking of the difficulties your "solution" is causing
    > you, now you're claiming it does "as good a job" of avoiding quirks mode as
    > the recommended solution. Make up your mind.


    An analysis of my original post.

    First paragraph after the “Greetingsâ€:
    I explain the objective of what I have accomplished: a “perfectâ€
    XHTML 1.1 implementation.

    Second paragraph:
    I explain the problems that I had (past tense) ran into with
    implementing XHTML 1.1 on IE, and provided an explanation of my
    workaround for IE’s inability to handle application/xhtml+xml, and why I
    had to use application/xml instead of text/html.

    Third paragraph:
    An explanation of the error I ran into when I *tried* (again, past
    tense) to use the XSLT transformation with a *standard* XHTML doctype,
    with the actual on-screen example bounded by <output></output>.

    Fourth paragraph:
    MY SOLUTION (already implemented): An “enhanced†XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE
    just for IE that is W3C-approved. SUCCESS! I have achieved a “perfectâ€
    XHTML implementation!

    Fifth paragraph (and bulleted list):
    MY BIG WORRY, AND THEREFORE WHAT I AM REQUESTING: Does this solution
    work only for me? Does my setup (IE7, with side-by-side installs of IE 5
    to 6) work simply because IE 5 to 6 exist in a side-by-side install? And
    finally, does this example of full XHTML implementation work with
    *anyone* who has *just* IE6, or *just* IE5.5, or *just* IE5?
    Essentially, “if anyone who receives the error message (as seen
    above) when viewing my example with IE, could they please tell meâ€.

    Final paragraphs:
    An open offer to critique the design, a link to the page in question,
    and a warning that the design might change without notice.


    Summary of this analysis:
    Paragraph 1 was the overview of my objective.
    Paragraphs 2 through 4 was background information (a description of
    the problems I encountered and the process I used to achieve success).
    Paragraph 5 was a request for others to double-check my work to
    ensure I was right - that IE 5-7 works flawlessly with the example, and
    does not throw an error.



    Was my post really so complicated that you couldn’t figure it out? How
    close to pablum do I need to make my posts so that they can be
    understood? At no time did I ever ask for help in fixing a problem. The
    problem was already fixed, and I took pains to make that clear. What I
    wanted was for people to double-check my work, to see if IE from v5
    onward worked correctly, without throwing an XSLT processing error.

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 21, 2007
    #10
  11. Neo Geshel <> writes:

    > Was my post really so complicated that you couldn’t figure it out? How
    > close to pablum do I need to make my posts so that they can be
    > understood?


    I understand you perfectly. You created a problem for yourself, patched
    it up with a bunch of half-baked workarounds, and now you expect us all
    to test those workarounds without pointing out that they wouldn't have
    been necessary if you hadn't created the problem in the first place.

    > At no time did I ever ask for help in fixing a problem.


    What makes you think I care what you asked for? I'm posting for the
    benefit of those who might learn from your mistakes. You can choose to
    be among that group or not - it makes no difference to me either way.

    > The problem was already fixed


    There would have been nothing to "fix" if you hadn't created the problem
    in the first place. There would have been no "fix" to test if you hadn't
    patched the symptoms with half-baked workarounds instead of addressing
    the real problem.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 21, 2007
    #11
  12. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >
    >> Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
    >> cross-posting.

    >
    > You were off-topic in two of the four groups you posted to.


    comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design
    - In original post: “Any and all comments about the *design* would
    also be appreciated.†On-topic.

    comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
    - I am authoring an XHTML site. In the absence of an XHTML NG, I’d
    say that this one is fair game.

    alt.html
    - see previous.

    comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc
    - possibly off-topic (a nearly dead NG), but very debatable since
    XHTML doesn’t have a NG of its own, and I *am* doing something rather
    esoteric...

    I'd say I was on-topic for three out of the four, at the very least;
    with the fourth being strongly debatable.

    >> I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
    >> *before* answering.

    >
    > Being polite works well for that. Much better, in fact, than shouting
    > at and insulting the people whose attention you're hoping to retain.


    I may have been too harsh in shouting it out; but - aside from the
    shouting - if you found that paragraph insulting, you seriously need to
    grow a thicker skin and actually get out into the real world once in a
    while. That first paragraph was a simple request for people to read and
    understand the entire post before giving their $0.02 worth, nothing more
    or less.

    So far, I have yet to see a single post that has understood my original
    request (to any degree whatsoever), and provided an appropriate answer.
    I’d say that the frustrations that drove me to create that first
    “shouting†paragraph are well-founded.

    >> And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
    >> me, on my own machine.

    >
    > Because first, it's not backwards. It's still the standard, and XHTML
    > hasn't yet gotten to the point where it's reliably compatible.
    >
    > And second, the point is that, however well XHTML may work on your own
    > machine, there are a *lot* of other machines out there on which it
    > does not work, and won't in the forseeable future.


    HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
    will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: “HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC 15445:2000
    are the most recent and final versions of HTML.â€
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)

    The future is all about XHTML (and to a greater, long-term extent, XML),
    and I intend to be at the head of the line. That is my choice, and so
    far I have found plenty of cell phones, handhelds (like the Blackberry)
    and other devices that work just fine with XHTML 1.1.

    >> Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.

    >
    > Oh, so you get to decide when the thread's over now, and who's allowed
    > to post to it? Who made you King of Usenet?


    One of my most important maxims is, “if you have nothing *constructive*
    to say, don’t say anything at allâ€. While I don’t always succeed in
    following that maxim to the letter, at least I make the effort. The vast
    majority of *his* post, however, was all about ridicule, sarcasm, his
    own opinion and ad hominem attacks. Aside from one or two small points,
    it was *far* from constructive.

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 21, 2007
    #12
  13. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >
    >> Was my post really so complicated that you couldn’t figure it out? How
    >> close to pablum do I need to make my posts so that they can be
    >> understood?

    >
    > I understand you perfectly. You created a problem for yourself, patched
    > it up with a bunch of half-baked workarounds, and now you expect us all
    > to test those workarounds without pointing out that they wouldn't have
    > been necessary if you hadn't created the problem in the first place.


    I never created a problem. I just found a way to solve it, but I wasn’t
    sure if my methods worked on only my own machines, or if they were
    successful beyond what I had at my fingertips.

    >> At no time did I ever ask for help in fixing a problem.

    >
    > What makes you think I care what you asked for? I'm posting for the
    > benefit of those who might learn from your mistakes. You can choose to
    > be among that group or not - it makes no difference to me either way.


    I made no mistake aside from the misguided *desire* to support Internet
    Explorer.

    The XHTML is semantically and structurally correct. The page is being
    served up with application/xml for IE, which - while not perfect - is
    still allowed for XHTML. The DOCTYPE has been extended in the very
    manner that the W3C recommends. The link comes up on all my versions of
    IE without any XSLT parsing errors at all.

    The entire purpose of my original post was: does anyone else with just
    one version of IE installed get an XSLT parse error? If so, please
    contact me.

    And that is, after all, the basic purpose of Usenet: To ask questions
    and get appropriate replies that are on-topic to the original question.

    Too bad none of your replies met this criteria.

    >> The problem was already fixed

    >
    > There would have been nothing to "fix" if you hadn't created the problem
    > in the first place. There would have been no "fix" to test if you hadn't
    > patched the symptoms with half-baked workarounds instead of addressing
    > the real problem.
    >
    > sherm--
    >


    Then what about all of those people with CSS “fixes†and “hacks†that
    need to be tested by other people, despite all relevant browsers being
    in “standards compliance†mode? The IE peekaboo bug is just one example.
    The Holly Hack is another that comes to mind.

    Creating a site with a new and unique design is all about creating,
    testing, modifying and testing again. Eventually, requests will have to
    be made to see if other people get the same results that you do, because
    it is unlikely that you can cover *all* of the variables with just the
    tools at your disposal. Even Microsoft, the biggest software company in
    the world, beta-tests their products on volunteers who are willing to
    check it out.

    I have done nothing more or less than that. And yet, I get flamed by you
    for it; having my implementation (my “half-baked workaroundâ€) held up
    and proclaimed far and wide as an example of what *not* to do, rather
    than seeing if it really is effective and reporting conditions under
    which it is not.

    Why?

    Why attack so vehemently, without even checking the link with your own
    copy of IE to see if I may actually be on to something?

    The problem is not me. And it is not my “half-baked workaroundâ€.

    The problem is you and your attitude. It stinks.

    Cheers.
    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 21, 2007
    #13
  14. Neo Geshel <> writes:

    > HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
    > will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: “HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC
    > 15445:2000 are the most recent and final versions of HTML.â€
    > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)


    Wikipedia doesn't define HTML; the W3C does that. OK, technically the
    W3C issues proposals, and it's up to the IETF to ISO approve (or not)
    them as standards, but in practice most everyone treats the latest W3C
    proposal as a de facto standard.

    The W3C has more or less openly admitted that XHTML is too ambitious
    and poorly supported, and they've chartered a new HTML working group
    a little over a month ago:

    <http://www.w3.org/html/>

    The group's charter states that both "classic" and XML syntax will be
    supported. That statement, and the formation of the working group in the
    first place, is a clear admission that browser support for XHTML is not
    as far along as the W3C had hoped it would be by now.

    > The future is all about XHTML


    Probably, but the browsers people are using right now have non-trivial
    problems with it.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 21, 2007
    #14
  15. Neo Geshel <> writes:

    > And that is, after all, the basic purpose of Usenet: To ask questions
    > and get appropriate replies


    Wrong again. Usenet is an open discussion, not a help desk. No one here
    is obligated to answer your question. The only obligation we have here
    is to stay within the topic of the group charter.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 21, 2007
    #15
  16. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >
    >> HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
    >> will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: “HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC
    >> 15445:2000 are the most recent and final versions of HTML.â€
    >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)

    >
    > Wikipedia doesn't define HTML; the W3C does that. OK, technically the
    > W3C issues proposals, and it's up to the IETF to ISO approve (or not)
    > them as standards, but in practice most everyone treats the latest W3C
    > proposal as a de facto standard.
    >
    > The W3C has more or less openly admitted that XHTML is too ambitious
    > and poorly supported, and they've chartered a new HTML working group
    > a little over a month ago:
    >
    > <http://www.w3.org/html/>
    >
    > The group's charter states that both "classic" and XML syntax will be
    > supported. That statement, and the formation of the working group in the
    > first place, is a clear admission that browser support for XHTML is not
    > as far along as the W3C had hoped it would be by now.


    That is news to me. I have had my mind on other things for the last
    little while, so I haven’t been keeping up on the W3C’s actions as I
    usually do.

    However, it appears all due to Microsoft’s IE web browser, and their
    inability to update it to the latest web standards:
    http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-pressrelease
    Essentially they are saying, because IE is so forgiving of mistakes, and
    can’t handle the newer standards, HTML has to be given some extra life
    support until IE catches up to Firefox/Opera.

    Thank goodness IE is loosing ground - some large web sites are showing
    IE usage at less than 70%.

    >> The future is all about XHTML

    >
    > Probably, but the browsers people are using right now have non-trivial
    > problems with it.
    >
    > sherm--
    >


    Make that browser, singular. As in, Internet Explorer. Firefox and Opera
    both have wonderful support for XHTML, and many cell phones and
    handhelds make use of Opera’s mobile version. If IE usage keeps
    accelerating downwards as it has been for the last year, it should
    become another Netscape within the next 2-3 years. As in, not worth the
    bother.

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 21, 2007
    #16
  17. Neo Geshel

    Neo Geshel Guest

    Sherm Pendley wrote:
    > Neo Geshel <> writes:
    >
    >> And that is, after all, the basic purpose of Usenet: To ask questions
    >> and get appropriate replies

    >
    > Wrong again. Usenet is an open discussion, not a help desk. No one here
    > is obligated to answer your question. The only obligation we have here
    > is to stay within the topic of the group charter.
    >
    > sherm--
    >


    The issue is not one of obligation. I do not *expect* my questions to be
    answered, nor do I take offence if my question remains unanswered. To
    wit: I really do not care if I am Warnocked. That’s life.

    If my posts *are* replied to, however, I would logically expect and
    appreciate the replies to be on-topic and in direct relation to the
    question(s) in the post that is being replied to. Attacks out of left
    field (topic-wise) are not logical, and definitely *not* expected or
    welcome.

    It’s like me saying, “I just had my car re-painted. Has the paint job
    been done well over the entire car, or do you see some places they missed?â€
    And your reply being, “Why did you get a Pontiac in the first place?
    It’s useless to paint them because they never last. You should have
    gotten a Ford.â€

    ...Geshel
    --
    ***********************************************************************
    My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
    Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
    Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
    a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL†(all uppercase).
    ***********************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Apr 21, 2007
    #17
  18. Neo Geshel <> writes:

    > If my posts *are* replied to, however, I would logically expect and
    > appreciate the replies to be on-topic and in direct relation to the
    > question(s) in the post that is being replied to.


    You asked for feedback about getting XHTML to work reliably and portably;
    I took a step back and responded that I don't think getting XHTML to work
    that way is a realistic goal in the first place.

    It wasn't the answer you wanted, but it was related and on topic.

    In my opinion, the answer someone asks for is not necessarily the answer he
    or she needs. Simply answering the question as stated may result in fewer
    ruffled feathers in the short term, but in many cases it's less helpful in
    the longer term.

    sherm--

    --
    Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
     
    Sherm Pendley, Apr 21, 2007
    #18
  19. Neo Geshel

    Mumia W. Guest

    On 04/20/2007 05:04 PM, Neo Geshel wrote:
    > NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
    > ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
    > INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
    > RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
    > CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.
    > [...]


    I'd try to help you if I had the Internet Explorer, but I don't.

    You'd probably get better responses in one of the
    microsoft.public.inetexplorer.* newsgroups.

    (Followups set to alt.html)
     
    Mumia W., Apr 21, 2007
    #19
  20. Neo Geshel

    Mumia W. Guest

    Mumia W., Apr 21, 2007
    #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. cmay
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,137
  2. =?UTF-8?B?UmVuw6kgS2FiaXM=?=

    Display problems with Internet Explorer & new site design

    =?UTF-8?B?UmVuw6kgS2FiaXM=?=, Dec 31, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    528
    Jonathan N. Little
    Jan 3, 2006
  3. Ed Hauptman
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,025
    Ed Hauptman
    Aug 7, 2009
  4. John Smith
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    146
    Evertjan.
    Mar 12, 2005
  5. COHENMARVIN
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    85
    Randy Webb
    Oct 11, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page