Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors?

C

Chaddy2222

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%.




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.
This is not really true, IE still have a share of around 80 / 90% of
the browser market and a lot of people use IE7 which does not support
XHTML served as aplicationXHTML+XML, so unless you use a lot of hacks
you can't use it. CSS hacks have nothing to do with this argument as
they are not hard to get working and also IE's support for CSS as a
web standard is getting a lot better the PNG issue is a good example
of this.
A part from it being a little pointless in some insences, there is
nothing wrong with serving XHTML as text/html and the W3C recomend
this as a part of apendix C of the XHTML 1.0 recomendations.
They do not suggest useing XHTML 1.1 at all.
 
S

Stan Brown

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.

When you're heading for an iceberg and asking for advice on making
the engines more efficient, it *is* on-topic and helpful to point out
that you're going in the wrong direction.

Too bad you're not willing to listen.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you
 
S

Sherm Pendley

Neo Geshel said:
<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

Mine does.
• Your version of IE

Reported as 6.0.2600.0000.xpclient.010817-1148
• Your OS (32-bit/64-bit), including service packs

32-bit XP, no service packs.

That's not as dumb as it sounds, btw. I use this instance of XP for
testing purposes only, not for daily use. It runs in a virtualized
sandbox, it's behind a firewall that blocks all incoming connections,
and attempts at outgoing connections bring up an alert in the host
OS and have to be approved individually.
• Your version of MSXMLS installed

No idea. As I said, I've installed no updates, so whatever originally
shipped with XP.
• And the error message, if it differs significantly from above

It's identical.

Also, Safari 2.0.4 shows a completely blank white page.

So, even after what sounds like a great deal of work on your part to
work around the limitations of XHTML, the result *still* isn't even on
par with HTML.

Further testing shows that a simple automated translation to HTML 4.01
strict results in a page that *does* render reliably in all the browsers
I have at hand, including the ones that choke on the XHTML version. The
tested browsers all report standards mode rendering for the HTML also.

That being the case, I stand by my previous assertion. Trying to "fix"
XHTML is an exercise in futility, when simply using HTML to begin with
is both easier and more reliable.

sherm--
 
N

Neo Geshel

Sherm said:
Mine does.


Reported as 6.0.2600.0000.xpclient.010817-1148


32-bit XP, no service packs.

That's not as dumb as it sounds, btw. I use this instance of XP for
testing purposes only, not for daily use. It runs in a virtualized
sandbox, it's behind a firewall that blocks all incoming connections,
and attempts at outgoing connections bring up an alert in the host
OS and have to be approved individually.


No idea. As I said, I've installed no updates, so whatever originally
shipped with XP.


It's identical.

Also, Safari 2.0.4 shows a completely blank white page.

So, even after what sounds like a great deal of work on your part to
work around the limitations of XHTML, the result *still* isn't even on
par with HTML.

Further testing shows that a simple automated translation to HTML 4.01
strict results in a page that *does* render reliably in all the browsers
I have at hand, including the ones that choke on the XHTML version. The
tested browsers all report standards mode rendering for the HTML also.

That being the case, I stand by my previous assertion. Trying to "fix"
XHTML is an exercise in futility, when simply using HTML to begin with
is both easier and more reliable.

sherm--


Thank you!! This is exactly what I need.

So, to confirm: are you saying that your XP is a default, un-upgraded
“virgin†install, pre-SP1? That is a very unusual setup these days, and
that alone *might* explain why you got the error message; but I’ll
consider your experience to be a significant first warning that I have
additional issues. My first Canary in this coal mine, as it were.

Could you also provide me with your browser’s user-agent? While I have
no intention of doing any sniffing based off of it (seeing as it can be
so easily spoofed... HTTP-ACCEPT is *far* more reliable than
HTTP-USER-AGENT for determining XHTML support), I wouldn’t mind seeing
what your browser’s UA looks like.

AS for Safari, I just discovered it for myself this morning. AFAIK, it’s
because Safari needs to be served application/xhtml+xml in order to go
into XHTML 1.1 mode. For some reason it doesn’t provide that mime-type
in its HTTP-ACCEPT response, but *does* provide application/xml, which
is why it is being served that. Strange.

That Canary is getting louder. Now all I need is additional
confirmations from other people and other versions of IE. After all,
just one thump on the head doesn’t mean the sky is falling.

Thanks.
...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).
***********************************************************************
 
S

Sherm Pendley

Neo Geshel said:
So, to confirm: are you saying that your XP is a default, un-upgraded
“virgin†install, pre-SP1? That is a very unusual setup these days,

It's a VirtualPC instance - I keep it around to test unusual setups. :)
Could you also provide me with your browser’s user-agent?

Which one? Whatever, here's both:

IE: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Safari: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/419
(KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

Unlike IE, my Safari instance is up to date.
That Canary is getting louder.

Search the archives for these groups, you'll find a whole choir's worth
of canaries. Like I said, you're not the first person to try this.

sherm--
 
B

Bergamot

Neo said:
So, to confirm: are you saying that your XP is a default, un-upgraded
“virgin†install, pre-SP1? That is a very unusual setup these days, and
that alone *might* explain why you got the error message;

FYI, the same error happens in IE6 on Win2K, both up to date with all
patches. There are still plenty of non-XP boxes out there, you know.
 
W

Wings

I don't know what nummie first said that CAPS was shouting, but it didn't
take long for the followers to jump on the band wagon and declare it one of
the original sins - because some seem to have trouble reading it??? Weird.

Your real problem, Neo, is your failure to adequately kiss ass before asking
your question....

Oh?! I top posted. Shame. Must be because I didn't want anyone to have to
wade through all that stuff below first.

Sherm said:
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.
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.
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."
(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.
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 all". 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).
***********************************************************************
 
V

VK

I am in the process of creating a template for a site. The site will be
*true* XHTML 1.1

XHTML is gone and will never come back. Get some Prozac or some beer
or both and try to move further with your life.

:) :-|

Note: Since 1999 I tried to get The Idea behind XHTML and I missed it
miserably - due to my narrow mental capabilities of course. OK, so
instead of hidden errors and possibly wrong resulting DOM Tree like in
HTML one will get "Page parsing error" message in XHTML. So kind of
"inevitable punishment" or so... Cool... I'm still missing the factor
preventing anyone to make valid HTML pages on the first place. If the
factor of "inevitable punishment" is so important, just make a program
sending a 1sec 110 V discharge to electrodes on each W3C Validator
error. Fix these electodes on your bo... sensitive part of your body -
and go ahead with the development: regularly validating your pages.
Functionally it is much more superior alternative to XHTML, really -
and fully cross-browser compliant.

"IE problem" is not simply that "IE doesn't support XHTML and Gecko
does". IE has very different HTML and XML models - in many aspects
superior to ones of other rivals. W3C and followers have to catch up
quickly now because all their time reserves were wasted for XHTML
experiments.

First of all, IE XML parser respects and loads external DTDs So all
these
<!DOCTYPE Extremely Utterly Strict XHTML> lines in XML parsing mode
being loaded and searched for extra entities. Gecko browsers are not
capable to use external DTD so they remain what they are intended to
be by W3C model: useless bogus strings at the top of the document to
silently disregard.

The second and maybe the most important difference is the namespace
mechanics. By Microsoft HTML has namespace and may have any amount of
extra namespaces. By W3C HTML doesn't have any namespaces, only XML
does. Unfortunately HTML 5 drafts by WHATWG still follow this W3C non-
sense despite no one of existing UA respects it - you can use
namespace'd DOM methods just fine on both Gecko and Opera. Now when
HTML5 is taken into a serious production this is the first thing to
fix.

Back to your original aim: if you feel that by using XHTML you are
"making the world better" or "defeating Micro$oft" then so shall be
it. People oftenly wasting their lifetime for even more bizarre
projects.

Technically you have to find a way then to forbid to IE to resolve
external entities. I believe XML has attributes and commands to
achieve this. comp.text.xml NG may be of a greater help.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,767
Messages
2,569,572
Members
45,045
Latest member
DRCM

Latest Threads

Top