Artemis wrote:
I'm confused lol. My personal site is XHTML and I don't get any popup
box when viewing in IE. What is this ?xml? used for? Why would the
average personal site need it? If you could explain in beginner
speak, I would greatly appreciate it :)
Information at the end of these
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
An added advantage of including the 'xml declaration' is that IE7 won't
be triggered by it. IE7 will simply skip it and treat 'xhtml 1.0' in
'Strict mode'. Therefore we have a built-in filter to avoid feeding IE6
styles to IE7, when our IE6 styles are using the old '*
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Yes. Why should we attempt to hide the truth from them, especially
when they're just starting out and they need to lose/avoid any bad
habits and mistakes as quickly as possible.
Yours is a fringe and pedantic opinion, and you're being
Artemis wrote:
I'm confused lol. My personal site is XHTML and I don't get any popup
box when viewing in IE.
That is because the MIME type sent in the HTTP Content-Type header would
be set to text/html. As has been discussed in this thread, the correct
MIME type is application/xhtml+xml,
Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:
Lachlan, you have been on this list long enough to know that when you
make extreme statements such as since you're new, you might want to
stick with HTML4 or IE does not support XHTML, that debate will
ensue.
So be it. If there are still people that don't
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
An added advantage of including the 'xml declaration' is that IE7
won't be triggered by it. IE7 will simply skip it and treat 'xhtml
1.0' in 'Strict mode'. Therefore we have a built-in filter to
avoid feeding IE6 styles to IE7, when our IE6 styles
[Lachlan wrote: IE has no native support for XHTML at all.]
So it's not native support but there _is_ support. How can you tell if there
is support, well, you do test-cases. If one can produce a test-case of valid
XHTML served as HTML to IE and IE parses it correctly, then there is support.
Why
Lachlan,
I was a science major in college and went into biotech which is dominated by
men. Your advice to me as a newcomer to just stick with HTML4 rather than
to try to learn the right way to use XHTML right off the bat reminded me of
the experiences I have had in science that I believe have
I'm trying to use TSWebEditor (www.tswebeditor.tk) at the moment. It has a
few annoying features but that is offset by a host of good things (including
PHP script debugging - if you need it :) and CSS Editing dialogs)
I'm a bit of a fundamentalist when it comes to editors and use SCITE because
Thank you rob,
I'm not sure is it the weekend of my message wasn't clear, its the
first time this list return with only one response
Regards
Jad madi
Blog
http://jadmadi.net/
Web standards Planet
http://W3planet.net/
**
The discussion list
Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
The main thing is, that if parsed correctly by HTML parser XTHML
would even produce more data, or to say it more exact, browsers
would show more. I mean an extra popping up for every br / and
img .../. Those compatibility guidelines rely solely on browsers
failing
Lori Cole wrote:
I think I will start attending a local user group rather than using this
list as I think people behave differently face to face[...]
Lowri, I agree that people sometimes behave differently face to face. My
impression is that the response you received was not due to any
On 12/3/05, Lori Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lachlan,
I was a science major in college and went into biotech which is dominated by
men. Your advice to me as a newcomer to just stick with HTML4 rather than
to try to learn the right way to use XHTML right off the bat reminded me of
the
On 12/3/05, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be aware that an XML 1.0 parser that was not built for XML 1.1 as well,
will fail with a well-formedness error if version=1.1 is encountered
in the declaration. For XML 1.0, the XML declaration is optional.
Wait, so you are saying that I could
Lori Cole wrote:
I think I will start attending a local user group rather than using this
list as I think people behave differently face to face and maybe some women
will be there. Thanks for those of you that have commented constructively
about IE and tidy. I took an HTML II online course
You may want to check this in 800 x 600 you have horiz scroll bar. The
original doesn’t.
thanks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of kvnmcwebn
Sent: 03 December 2005 00:10
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] liquid widths
Im only
Could someone please spell the appropriate markup on the XHTML versus
HTML issue?
In other words, instead of the following:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd;
html xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml; xml:lang=en
On 12/3/05, T. R. Valentine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put another way, is the value for 'content' the key for determing MIME type?
The reason I am puzzled is that the latter example (which, *if* I have
understood what has been written should not work in IE because it is
XHTML) appears to be
On 03/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your server is sending the MIME type text/html, then the META
doesn't do anything. You need to change the MIME type being sent out
in the headers, and that is done server side.
Thanks for that explanation. But what about when simply
2005/12/3, T. R. Valentine [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 03/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your server is sending the MIME type text/html, then the META
doesn't do anything. You need to change the MIME type being sent out
in the headers, and that is done server side.
Thanks
Christian Montoya wrote:
Wait, so you are saying that I could serve application/xhtml+xml to
modern browsers without the xml declaration? What about declaring the
stylesheets in xml declarations at the top of the document? I thought
that was required.
As we're talking about xhtml (rather than
On 12/3/05, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christian Montoya wrote:
Wait, so you are saying that I could serve application/xhtml+xml to
modern browsers without the xml declaration? What about declaring the
stylesheets in xml declarations at the top of the document? I thought
Christian Montoya wrote:
Lori, don't give up on us so fast. I can assure you that Lachlan's
comments were not meant to be sexist, and I think the discussion that
ensued has been helpful for us all. Even if someone on this list does
say something you don't like, don't let it discourage you,
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
There was this note once from the W3C which said that the XML Style
Sheet PI should be used when the media type of the XHTML file is
application/xhtml+xml[1]. And as should is similar to a must...
Ah, I see, cheers Anne. On the should issue:
from
and http://webstandardsgroup.org/go/resourcecat30.cfm
Or http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssEditors
I personally use BBEdit on OSX and PSPad on WXP (+ jEdit and Eclipse on
both).
--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.com
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I might add that my fringe and pedantic opinion is based on fact,
and that not one valid technical argument has yet been raised in this
thread against any of the technical reasons I've posted.
Ah, but the argument is not strictly one of technicalities -- it's a
matter of
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 12/3/05, Lachlan Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Be aware that an XML 1.0 parser that was not built for XML 1.1 as well,
will fail with a well-formedness error if version=1.1 is encountered
in the declaration. For XML 1.0, the XML declaration is optional.
Wait, so
Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I might add that my fringe and pedantic opinion is based on fact,
and that not one valid technical argument has yet been raised in this
thread against any of the technical reasons I've posted.
Ah, but the argument is not strictly one of
Dear List:
A pending graduate IT student asked my opinion on .net technologies.
My understating, less than a month old, designing UI's for .net
applications, is that the need for standards within this framework is
without question.
Having approached the list last month with issues
T. R. Valentine wrote:
On 03/12/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your server is sending the MIME type text/html, then the META
doesn't do anything. You need to change the MIME type being sent out
in the headers, and that is done server side.
The only reason the meta element
Some reading:
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200511/no_xhtml_10_strict_in_aspnet_20/
http://aspnetresources.com/blog/aspnet_for_designers.aspx
http://aspnetresources.com/blog/aspnet_and_xhtml.aspx
http://www.aspnetresources.com/blog/xhtml10_transitional_in_aspnet20.aspx
Lori Cole wrote:
I was a science major in college and went into biotech which is dominated by
men. Your advice to me as a newcomer to just stick with HTML4 rather than
to try to learn the right way to use XHTML right off the bat reminded me of
the experiences I have had in science that I
On 12/4/05, Chris Kennon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear List:
A pending graduate IT student asked my opinion on .net technologies.
My understating, less than a month old, designing UI's for .net
applications, is that the need for standards within this framework is
without question.
Having
33 matches
Mail list logo
