Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)
List of XHTML 1.1 entities, served as application/xhtml+xml : http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/entities/entities-11.xhtml I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)
Kenny Graham wrote: Patrick said: and once you go from XHTML 1.0 strict to 1.1 (yes, yes, changing mime type and all that) there are a few more things to look out for ... not being allowed any character entities apart from the basic amp; lt; gt; quot; and apo; - so things like copy; for instance will not be valid). Are you sure? Sorry, just realised that I'm talking out of my derriere. I was half remembering that, when sending application/xhtml+xml, *browser support* for named entities can be flaky, and that some browsers then revert to just understanding the basic 5 entities (oh, and also made a typo...it's apos; and not apo;). as XHTML 1.1 should be sent as application/xhtml+xml, i got myself mixed up. Apologies for the confusion...it's obviously time for me to get to bed ;) -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)
On 6 Jan 2006, at 10:50 am, Kenny Graham wrote: List of XHTML 1.1 entities, served as application/xhtml+xml : http://www.w3.org/People/mimasa/test/xhtml/entities/entities-11.xhtml I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such. If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm afraid, you'll have to go back... Screen shot from the page linked above (Safari 2.02 - latest Webkit nightly builds are identical): http://emps.l-c-n.com/bm/Safari-entities.png Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)
Kenny Graham wrote: I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such. Philippe wrote: If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm afraid, you'll have to go back... If these entities are not allowed when served as application/xhtml+xml shouldn't the W3C validator pick this up? Or has Safari got it wrong? Thanks Jason ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)
Patrick wrote: *browser support* for named entities can be flaky Sorry I missed post I'm still surprised that Safari has limited support Thanks Jason ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] XHTML 1.1 Entities (WAS Claiming compliance when a site doesn't comply)
On 6 Jan 2006, at 1:42 pm, Jason Turnbull wrote: Kenny Graham wrote: I really hope I'm right, or I'm gonna have to go back to a lot of sites to fix a lot of ldquo;s and such. Philippe wrote: If you want to support Safari (with application/xhtml+xml), I'm afraid, you'll have to go back... If these entities are not allowed when served as application/xhtml+xml shouldn't the W3C validator pick this up? Or has Safari got it wrong? Not really wrong. Firefox and recent Opera versions rely on the Doctype to parse the document as xml in addition to the mime-type [1], while Safari bases its parsing only on the mime-type. [1] this gives them additional knowledge about those entities. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
