Test pages served as html, xhtml, and xml

Discussion in 'HTML' started by cwdjrxyz, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    To show how the same page(except for the text) is served with the
    correct application/html, application/xml, and application/xhtml+xml
    mime types installed on the server for the extensions .html, .xml, and
    ..xhtml, I have prepared four test pages at
    http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/ . Ignore the mime file in this
    directory. The auto file uses a php include to select the correct mime
    type for a browser. The text on the pages explains some of the
    comparisons you might like to make. To best make this comparison, you
    need at least a recent Mozilla family
    browser(Firefox,Mozilla,Netscape), Opera, and IE6. These 3 classes of
    browsers should show all of the differences mentioned in the text.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. cwdjrxyz

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "cwdjrxyz" <> wrote:

    > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/


    Going to your http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/auto.php on my
    latest Safari, I get this insult:

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    <html lang="en">
    <!-- Your browser is outdated and can not process true xhtml 1.1
    using the required application/xhtml+xml mime type on the server.
    Thus the code has been converted to html 4.01 strict by the
    server using php for viewing on this browser. The Microsoft IE6
    browser is one of the outmoded browsers thay can not handle the
    application/xhtml+xml using the extension .xhtml for xhtml 1.1.
    --><head>

    But better, is it better?, in latest Mozilla for Mac OS X, I get:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
    <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">

    I think this world is getting too complicated for a simple
    Martian like me. Shall I complain bitterly in Mac groups about
    this re Safari?

    Hey, MP, did you see those dangerous bs, the safricans, in the
    one-dayer the other day? They played with us like a cat with a
    mouse, and then just squashed us. There will be a reckoning,
    trust me.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jan 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    dorayme wrote:


    > I think this world is getting too complicated for a simple
    > Martian like me. Shall I complain bitterly in Mac groups about
    > this re Safari?
    >
    > Hey, MP, did you see those dangerous bs, the safricans, in the
    > one-dayer the other day? They played with us like a cat with a
    > mouse, and then just squashed us. There will be a reckoning,
    > trust me.


    Thanks for your observation. I knew Safari likely would work on the
    auto page, because someone else once sent me a screen capture for
    another page that used the same php include. However I did not know
    what path it took. So far as I know, I can not install Safari on my
    Windows XP OS for testing. I do know that many Apple computer owners
    like their computer very much, especially those working with media.
    Many Hollywood media types would have nothing but an Apple for their
    work.

    As the IE6 does not support true xhtml served properly and apparently
    neither will the upcoming IE7, you have nothing to fear for your
    Safari. You can start to worry when IE supports true xhtml and xhtml
    takes off on many sites, if it ever does.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 18, 2006
    #3
  4. cwdjrxyz

    Toby Inkster Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > As the IE6 does not support true xhtml served properly and apparently
    > neither will the upcoming IE7, you have nothing to fear for your
    > Safari. You can start to worry when IE supports true xhtml and xhtml
    > takes off on many sites, if it ever does.


    Safari has good support XHTML support, and has done since it was in beta
    testing.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jan 18, 2006
    #4
  5. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >
    > > As the IE6 does not support true xhtml served properly and apparently
    > > neither will the upcoming IE7, you have nothing to fear for your
    > > Safari. You can start to worry when IE supports true xhtml and xhtml
    > > takes off on many sites, if it ever does.

    >
    > Safari has good support XHTML support, and has done since it was in beta
    > testing.


    I was under the impression that Safari would support xhtml also until I
    received the answer that it was being sent the html 4.01 strict version
    when using the auto page.. Unfortunately, I can not download Safari to
    my Windows XP for testing. At least for the auto select page, the
    Sarfari got the xhtml 4.01 version of the page which it can handle. The
    critical question is did the Safari accept the page served as true
    xhtml 1.1 using the extension/ mime pairs on the server of .xhtml
    application/xhtml+xml and .xml application/xml. Of course pages on the
    web with these mime type/extension pairs are still rather rare, and
    many likely never have downloaded such a page before. However, for the
    main xhtml aware browsers such as Opera, Firefox, Netscape, and
    Mozilla, all of the pages are handled just as they should be.

    A lady who has Konqueror sent me an email. She gets the html 4.01 code
    from the auto select page. However her worry was that her browser
    supports xml. Since this could confuse some, I will snip a portion of
    my answer to her below.

    Thanks very much for your feedback. I believe that your browser does
    not support a page served with the mime types application/xml or
    application/xhtml+xml. However it supports serving as application/html.
    These various methods do not mean a browser can not handle xml code if
    it is written in a proper manner for a browser. For example, IE6 will
    only accept a page served with the mime type application/html. However
    you can use xml code on it if coded in a way that IE6 likes. You likely
    have never noticed problems in displaying xml because nearly all
    present web pages are served as application/html. Just because you
    write a page in xhtml 1.1 does not mean it will be served as true
    xhtml. That will only happen if you put pairs of extensions and mime
    types on your server such as .xhtml application/xhtml+xml. If you use
    an extension .html for the xhtml 1.1 page, it just gets served as
    application/xhtml.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 18, 2006
    #5
  6. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > Toby Inkster wrote:
    > > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > >
    > > > As the IE6 does not support true xhtml served properly and apparently
    > > > neither will the upcoming IE7, you have nothing to fear for your
    > > > Safari. You can start to worry when IE supports true xhtml and xhtml
    > > > takes off on many sites, if it ever does.

    > >
    > > Safari has good support XHTML support, and has done since it was in beta
    > > testing.

    >
    > I was under the impression that Safari would support xhtml also until I
    > received the answer that it was being sent the html 4.01 strict version
    > when using the auto page.. Unfortunately, I can not download Safari to
    > my Windows XP for testing. At least for the auto select page, the
    > Sarfari got the xhtml 4.01 version of the page which it can handle. The
    > critical question is did the Safari accept the page served as true
    > xhtml 1.1 using the extension/ mime pairs on the server of .xhtml
    > application/xhtml+xml and .xml application/xml. Of course pages on the
    > web with these mime type/extension pairs are still rather rare, and
    > many likely never have downloaded such a page before. However, for the
    > main xhtml aware browsers such as Opera, Firefox, Netscape, and
    > Mozilla, all of the pages are handled just as they should be.
    >
    > A lady who has Konqueror sent me an email. She gets the html 4.01 code
    > from the auto select page. However her worry was that her browser
    > supports xml. Since this could confuse some, I will snip a portion of
    > my answer to her below.
    >
    > Thanks very much for your feedback. I believe that your browser does
    > not support a page served with the mime types application/xml or
    > application/xhtml+xml. However it supports serving as application/html.
    > These various methods do not mean a browser can not handle xml code if
    > it is written in a proper manner for a browser. For example, IE6 will
    > only accept a page served with the mime type application/html. However
    > you can use xml code on it if coded in a way that IE6 likes. You likely
    > have never noticed problems in displaying xml because nearly all
    > present web pages are served as application/html. Just because you
    > write a page in xhtml 1.1 does not mean it will be served as true
    > xhtml. That will only happen if you put pairs of extensions and mime
    > types on your server such as .xhtml application/xhtml+xml. If you use
    > an extension .html for the xhtml 1.1 page, it just gets served as
    > application/xhtml.


    I examined the php include in the auto page that processes the header
    information. It is set up to use the true xhtml page only if it finds
    the mime type application/xhtml+html mentioned by the browser as a
    possible application when the server and browser first connect. If no
    mention of this mime type is found, it takes the safe "else" path to
    serve as html 4.01 strict, since anything else would require elaborate
    browser and version detection that is far from safe. It is quite
    posible a browser vendor could make an "xhtml ready" browser. That is,
    it would handle xhtml served as html(which is no big deal), but it
    could accept true xhtml served as such at some future time when the
    browser vendor thinks the browser is ready and adds the correct mime
    type for it in the header information the browser provides the server.
    Such a "xhtml ready" browser might or might not support a page served
    only as application/xhtml+xml or as application/xml. It might be
    possible to hack around this if there really are any "xhtml ready"
    browsers. However I can not afford to add extra computers to support
    some of the browsers of interest, these browsers are not used very much
    yet, and there would be many possible problems in detecting which
    browser and version you had. Thus I am content to let any possible
    "xhtml ready" browers receive xhtml 4.01 strict for now.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 19, 2006
    #6
  7. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > I examined the php include in the auto page that processes the header
    > information. It is set up to use the true xhtml page only if it finds
    > the mime type application/xhtml+html mentioned by the browser as a
    > possible application when the server and browser first connect. If no
    > mention of this mime type is found, it takes the safe "else" path to
    > serve as html 4.01 strict, since anything else would require elaborate
    > browser and version detection that is far from safe. It is quite
    > posible a browser vendor could make an "xhtml ready" browser. That is,
    > it would handle xhtml served as html(which is no big deal), but it
    > could accept true xhtml served as such at some future time when the
    > browser vendor thinks the browser is ready and adds the correct mime
    > type for it in the header information the browser provides the server.
    > Such a "xhtml ready" browser might or might not support a page served
    > only as application/xhtml+xml or as application/xml. It might be
    > possible to hack around this if there really are any "xhtml ready"
    > browsers. However I can not afford to add extra computers to support
    > some of the browsers of interest, these browsers are not used very much
    > yet, and there would be many possible problems in detecting which
    > browser and version you had. Thus I am content to let any possible
    > "xhtml ready" browers receive xhtml 4.01 strict for now.


    I have added another page named
    http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/autoForceXhtml.php .
    It is designed to automatically force the page to be served as
    application/xhtml+xml no matter what the browser says it will support
    or likes in the header exchange. Thus browsers that really will not
    support true xhtml 1.1 served properly will not display the page.
    However if there is a "xhtml ready" browser out there that really could
    support true xhtml, but does not because it does not mention it in the
    browser-server header exchange, this page may smoke it out. I give more
    discussion on the page if your browser allows you in. This new page
    gets in and displays for the recent Firefox, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera,
    and W3C Amaya browsers. It does not open the page for IE6 or Netscape
    4.8, which of course it should not. Of course I do not know if there
    are really any "xhtml ready" browsers out there, and if there are I do
    not have them installed on my computer.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 19, 2006
    #7
  8. cwdjrxyz

    Toby Inkster Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > I was under the impression that Safari would support xhtml also until I
    > received the answer that it was being sent the html 4.01 strict version
    > when using the auto page.


    Just because it's being *sent* HTML in your example, that doesn't mean
    that it doesn't *support* XHTML -- it just means that you're not sending
    XHTML to it (for whatever reason).

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jan 19, 2006
    #8
  9. cwdjrxyz

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >
    > > I examined the php include in the auto page that processes the header
    > > information. It is set up to use the true xhtml page only if it finds
    > > the mime type application/xhtml+html mentioned by the browser as a
    > > possible application when the server and browser first connect. If no
    > > mention of this mime type is found, it takes the safe "else" path to
    > > serve as html 4.01 strict, since anything else would require elaborate
    > > browser and version detection that is far from safe. It is quite
    > > posible a browser vendor could make an "xhtml ready" browser. That is,
    > > it would handle xhtml served as html(which is no big deal), but it
    > > could accept true xhtml served as such at some future time when the
    > > browser vendor thinks the browser is ready and adds the correct mime
    > > type for it in the header information the browser provides the server.
    > > Such a "xhtml ready" browser might or might not support a page served
    > > only as application/xhtml+xml or as application/xml. It might be
    > > possible to hack around this if there really are any "xhtml ready"
    > > browsers. However I can not afford to add extra computers to support
    > > some of the browsers of interest, these browsers are not used very much
    > > yet, and there would be many possible problems in detecting which
    > > browser and version you had. Thus I am content to let any possible
    > > "xhtml ready" browers receive xhtml 4.01 strict for now.

    >
    > I have added another page named
    > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/autoForceXhtml.php .
    > It is designed to automatically force the page to be served as
    > application/xhtml+xml no matter what the browser says it will support
    > or likes in the header exchange. Thus browsers that really will not
    > support true xhtml 1.1 served properly will not display the page.
    > However if there is a "xhtml ready" browser out there that really could
    > support true xhtml, but does not because it does not mention it in the
    > browser-server header exchange, this page may smoke it out. I give more
    > discussion on the page if your browser allows you in. This new page
    > gets in and displays for the recent Firefox, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera,
    > and W3C Amaya browsers. It does not open the page for IE6 or Netscape
    > 4.8, which of course it should not. Of course I do not know if there
    > are really any "xhtml ready" browsers out there, and if there are I do
    > not have them installed on my computer.

    Well, your forced XHTML page seams to work fine in FireFox1.0.7, but
    not in IE as you expected.
    As a thaught, if you want to serve HTML in stead of XHTML, I would just
    serve HTML4.01Strict too both browsers as it is a lot less work and may
    save a lot of problems when rendering between, say IE7 and previous
    versions of Ie. I also think that useing XHTML at the moment is a bit
    pointless, as not even some PDA's support it.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
    Chaddy2222, Jan 19, 2006
    #9
  10. cwdjrxyz

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "cwdjrxyz" <> wrote:

    > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/autoForceXhtml.php


    This link displays in Mac browsers: Safari, the latest Mozilla
    (for X) and latest Opera (for X) in the source:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
    <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">

    while in the browser, your message (in white on blue):

    This page is automatically forced to be served as
    applicatiom/xhtml+xml no matter what the browser says it supports
    are likes to support. Thus any browser that really will not
    support true xhtml 1.1 properly served will not display the page.
    A browser that is completely "xhtml ready" that really could
    serve true xhtml but usually will not because it does not mention
    application/xhtml +xml support in the header exchange between it
    and the server may be smoked out by this approach. I would
    greatly appreciate knowing if anyone finds a browser that gives
    you only a html 4.01 strict page when you use the auto page and
    gives you an xhtml 1.1 page when you use this page.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jan 19, 2006
    #10
  11. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >
    > > As the IE6 does not support true xhtml served properly and apparently
    > > neither will the upcoming IE7, you have nothing to fear for your
    > > Safari. You can start to worry when IE supports true xhtml and xhtml
    > > takes off on many sites, if it ever does.

    >
    > Safari has good support XHTML support, and has done since it was in beta
    > testing.


    I think that Dorayme, in his latest post, may have provided the answer
    for Safari. It can be forced to go the true xhtml route if one does
    that in the header/server exchange and allows no other options. This is
    nearly, but not absolute, evidence that Safari does not provide the
    mime type application/xhtml+xml as an option, since it takes the 4.01
    route using the auto page and many other browsers will take the true
    xhtml route if offered at all by the browser by the header/server
    exchange. If I had a Safari browser, I could write many test php header
    programs to run down all of the details, but I do not. Whatever the
    reason that Safari responds the way it does, at least no harm will be
    done if it gets a page as html 4.01 strict rather than true xhtml 1.1.
    If, on the other hand, a browser that can not handle xhtml 1.1 got a
    page written in it, this would be a problem. In theory, detection of
    the Safari browser and version number could be used to force true xhtml
    for Safari. However, in these days when browsers spoof one another,
    detection of browser name and version has fallen into disfavor - many
    have locked out some browsers by using it.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 19, 2006
    #11
  12. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > "cwdjrxyz" <> wrote:
    >
    > > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/autoForceXhtml.php

    >
    > This link displays in Mac browsers: Safari, the latest Mozilla
    > (for X) and latest Opera (for X) in the source:
    >
    > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
    > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
    >
    > while in the browser, your message (in white on blue):
    >
    > This page is automatically forced to be served as
    > applicatiom/xhtml+xml no matter what the browser says it supports
    > are likes to support. Thus any browser that really will not
    > support true xhtml 1.1 properly served will not display the page.
    > A browser that is completely "xhtml ready" that really could
    > serve true xhtml but usually will not because it does not mention
    > application/xhtml +xml support in the header exchange between it
    > and the server may be smoked out by this approach. I would
    > greatly appreciate knowing if anyone finds a browser that gives
    > you only a html 4.01 strict page when you use the auto page and
    > gives you an xhtml 1.1 page when you use this page.


    Thanks again. This is nearly, but not absolute, evidence that Safari
    does not provide the mime type application/xhtml+xml as an option,
    since it takes the 4.01 route using the auto page and many other
    browsers will take the true xhtml route if offered at all by the
    browser by the header/server exchange. If I had a Safari browser, I
    could write many test php header programs to run down all of the
    details, but I do not. Whatever the reason that Safari responds the way
    it does, at least no harm will be done if it gets a page as html 4.01
    strict rather than true xhtml 1.1
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 19, 2006
    #12
  13. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > > "cwdjrxyz" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/autoForceXhtml.php

    > >
    > > This link displays in Mac browsers: Safari, the latest Mozilla
    > > (for X) and latest Opera (for X) in the source:
    > >
    > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
    > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
    > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
    > > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
    > >
    > > while in the browser, your message (in white on blue):
    > >
    > > This page is automatically forced to be served as
    > > applicatiom/xhtml+xml no matter what the browser says it supports
    > > are likes to support. Thus any browser that really will not
    > > support true xhtml 1.1 properly served will not display the page.
    > > A browser that is completely "xhtml ready" that really could
    > > serve true xhtml but usually will not because it does not mention
    > > application/xhtml +xml support in the header exchange between it
    > > and the server may be smoked out by this approach. I would
    > > greatly appreciate knowing if anyone finds a browser that gives
    > > you only a html 4.01 strict page when you use the auto page and
    > > gives you an xhtml 1.1 page when you use this page.

    >
    > Thanks again. This is nearly, but not absolute, evidence that Safari
    > does not provide the mime type application/xhtml+xml as an option,
    > since it takes the 4.01 route using the auto page and many other
    > browsers will take the true xhtml route if offered at all by the
    > browser by the header/server exchange. If I had a Safari browser, I
    > could write many test php header programs to run down all of the
    > details, but I do not. Whatever the reason that Safari responds the way
    > it does, at least no harm will be done if it gets a page as html 4.01
    > strict rather than true xhtml 1.1


    There is a chance that Safari might say that it supports
    application/xml and not say that it supports application/xhtml+xml.
    This would be an acceptable method to support xhtml, but I have never
    seen it used by a browser before. Anyway, I have a new auto page at
    http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/autoWithXML.php . This checks to see
    if the browser offers either application/xhtml+xml support or
    application/xml support. If it does you get an xhtml 1.1 page. Else you
    get an html 4.01 strict page. This page displays as xhtml 1.1 on Opera,
    Mozilla, Netscape, Firefox, and the W3C Amaya browsers. It displays as
    html 4.01 strict on the IE6 and Netscape 4.8, as it should. It would be
    interesting to see what Safari does. I would be very surprised if
    Sarfari would say that it supports application/xml rather than
    application/xhtml+xml, but Apple could have gone avant-garde and become
    one of the first browsers on the block to do this.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 19, 2006
    #13
  14. cwdjrxyz

    Toby Inkster Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:

    > I think that Dorayme, in his latest post, may have provided the answer
    > for Safari. It can be forced to go the true xhtml route if one does
    > that in the header/server exchange and allows no other options. This is
    > nearly, but not absolute, evidence that Safari does not provide the
    > mime type application/xhtml+xml as an option


    Safari's HTTP Accept header is as follows:

    Accept: */*

    which leaves it open for pretty much anything!

    (Testing Safari 1.3.1.)

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jan 19, 2006
    #14
  15. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:
    > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >
    > > I think that Dorayme, in his latest post, may have provided the answer
    > > for Safari. It can be forced to go the true xhtml route if one does
    > > that in the header/server exchange and allows no other options. This is
    > > nearly, but not absolute, evidence that Safari does not provide the
    > > mime type application/xhtml+xml as an option

    >
    > Safari's HTTP Accept header is as follows:
    >
    > Accept: */*
    >
    > which leaves it open for pretty much anything!
    >
    > (Testing Safari 1.3.1.)


    Thanks very much Toby. That is consistent with the results obtained for
    Safari for the original auto page that uses 4.01 strict if
    application/xhtml+xml support is not mentioned by the browser in the
    browser/server header exchange and the fact that the Safari could be
    forced to accept application/xhtml+xml if no other option is given in
    the php include. I hope that I hear from the lady with the Konqueror
    again to see if it could be forced to accept application/xhtml+xml.
    This leaves the safe option of letting Safari receive html 4.01 strict.
    I may look at how difficult and reliable it is to detect Safari, but
    this approach is so risky that I am going to be in no hurry to do so. I
    doubt if many people, except on a Network where everything can be
    controlled, are going to be serving true xhtml to Safari because, to
    serve it as application xhtml+xml only, would make the page unusable on
    IE6 an some other browsers.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 19, 2006
    #15
  16. cwdjrxyz

    Toby Inkster Guest

    cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > Toby Inkster wrote:
    >
    >> Safari's HTTP Accept header is as follows:
    >> Accept: */*

    >
    > Thanks very much Toby. That is consistent with the results obtained for
    > Safari for the original auto page that uses 4.01 strict if
    > application/xhtml+xml support is not mentioned by the browser


    It doesn't mention text/html support either, so why send HTML in
    preference to XHTML?

    > I hope that I hear from the lady with the Konqueror again to see if it
    > could be forced to accept application/xhtml+xml.


    Konqueror supports XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml just fine. The
    HTTP Accept header (for Konq 3.1.4) is:

    Accept: text/html, image/jpeg, image/png, text/*, image/*, */*

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Jan 20, 2006
    #16
  17. cwdjrxyz

    dorayme Guest

    In article <5n.co.uk>,
    Toby Inkster <> wrote:

    > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >
    > > I think that Dorayme, in his latest post, may have provided the answer
    > > for Safari. It can be forced to go the true xhtml route if one does
    > > that in the header/server exchange and allows no other options. This is
    > > nearly, but not absolute, evidence that Safari does not provide the
    > > mime type application/xhtml+xml as an option

    >
    > Safari's HTTP Accept header is as follows:
    >
    > Accept: */*
    >
    > which leaves it open for pretty much anything!
    >
    > (Testing Safari 1.3.1.)


    I was using 2.0.3 (also the other Mac browsers I mentioned were
    the latest)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jan 20, 2006
    #17
  18. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote:

    > Konqueror supports XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml just fine. The
    > HTTP Accept header (for Konq 3.1.4) is:
    >
    > Accept: text/html, image/jpeg, image/png, text/*, image/*, */*


    I am indebted to you again, Toby, for the above Accept information for
    Konqueror. Since it does not mention application/xhtml+xml in the
    Accept header information, it would be expected to route my auto page
    for the html 4.01 strict version. This is just what the lady who sent
    me an email found. Fortunately this is the safe thing to do. As for the
    Apple Safari, you would have to serve the page as proper xhtml 1.1 to
    get it to respond as xhtml 1.1. However, as with the Safari, not many
    people will want to do this, except on a controlled network, because
    such a page would not be seen on IE6, for example. Getting around this
    likely would require risky browser name and version detection.
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 20, 2006
    #18
  19. cwdjrxyz wrote :

    I have prepared four test pages at
    > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/ .


    When I load the page
    http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/xhtml11.xhtml
    with Firefox 1.5, I can read this
    "There is no correction for a background-color style sheet problem on
    Mozilla family browsers that was corrected on the auto php page."
    But, like I wrote you in the other thread (XHTML or HTML 4), this is not
    correct:

    "The background of the root element becomes the background of the canvas
    and covers the entire canvas, anchored at the same point as it would be
    if it was painted only for the root element itself. The root element
    does not paint this background again.

    For HTML documents, however, we recommend that authors specify the
    background for the BODY element rather than the HTML element. For HTML
    documents whose root HTML element has computed values of 'transparent'
    for 'background-color' and 'none' for 'background-image', user agents
    must instead use the computed value of those properties from that HTML
    element's first BODY element child when painting backgrounds for the
    canvas, and must not paint a background for that BODY element. This does
    not apply to XHTML documents. "
    CSS 2.1, Section 14.2 The background
    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#q2

    Reported bug at Opera, bug 176629

    XHTML body background propagates to canvas
    http://geocities.com/csssite/operabugs/bug53.xhtml

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147436
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=272804

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Jan 20, 2006
    #19
  20. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Gérard Talbot wrote:
    > cwdjrxyz wrote :
    >
    > I have prepared four test pages at
    > > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/ .

    >
    > When I load the page
    > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/xhtml11.xhtml
    > with Firefox 1.5, I can read this
    > "There is no correction for a background-color style sheet problem on
    > Mozilla family browsers that was corrected on the auto php page."
    > But, like I wrote you in the other thread (XHTML or HTML 4), this is not
    > correct:
    >
    > "The background of the root element becomes the background of the canvas
    > and covers the entire canvas, anchored at the same point as it would be
    > if it was painted only for the root element itself. The root element
    > does not paint this background again.


    >From a strict technical standpoint, apparently Mozilla family browsers

    are meeting the specifications. However, from a practical standpoint, I
    think Opera may have done the best thing. I suppose a good lawyer could
    argue that Opera meets the background coverage required by the
    specifications and also exceeds it. All of this may be of minor
    practical importance in many cases. The point is that you are going to
    have to write background color code in a different way for an xhtml
    page as long as Opera and Mozilla family browsers implement the
    background color in a different way and you want the page to appear
    about the same on the various browsers. This mainly becomes a problem
    when you have a short page that does not fill the screen and use a dark
    colored background, if you do not like the glare of a bright screen
    below the page content. For a page that exceeds the height of the
    screen greatly, or for light backgrounds, the glare of the bright
    screen below the content is not nearly as bothersome. Anyway this is
    the least of my concerns at the moment in an attempt to get as many
    recent browsers as possible to be served as true xhtml 1.1. However,
    thanks for the references, as I might want to look into the details
    more when I am more concerned with actual writing of code in xhtml 1.1
    .. My general impression is that I like the way Opera supports xhtml 1.1
    a bit better than how the Mozilla family browsers do. One can no doubt
    find many small deviations from strict specifations for both Opera and
    Mozilla family browsers, viewed in the most literal light. After all,
    there still are many deviations from specifications for html,
    especially in IE6. It is difficult to strike the best balance between
    being too literal and too loose. I believe it may have been Lord
    Chesterfield that made an observation to the effect that a gentleman is
    one who knows the rules before breaking them :).
    cwdjrxyz, Jan 20, 2006
    #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. Shahid Siddiqui
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    324
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)
    Oct 15, 2003
  2. Craig Deelsnyder
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,960
    Joe Fallon
    Jul 15, 2004
  3. LP
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    610
    Robbe Morris [C# MVP]
    Feb 19, 2005
  4. manofsteele

    ASP pages not being served correctly

    manofsteele, Oct 22, 2003, in forum: ASP General
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    153
    Dave Anderson
    Oct 22, 2003
  5. Jeff
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    181
Loading...

Share This Page