But just to be fair, it's not the xml declaration itselfs that breaks IE (both 6 and 7). It's the apache license comment _between_ the <xml declaration and the doctype.
-Matej On Dec 28, 2007 2:40 PM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 28, 2007 2:24 PM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am still not convinced that the xml declaration should be there in the > > first place, or at least that it should have been added this late in the > > game. Look at what is happening now: we are discussing new features to work > > around one of the stupidest browsers in the world just because someone (just > > 1 person) reported some missing xml declaration. I warned against it and see > > the mess we're in. > > Revert the damned xml declarations and release 1.3 final. Pick up the issue > > again in 1.4 and address it properly. We have been able to build and ship > > wicket applications for over 3 years without the declaration, so I don't see > > why we can't do so another 4 months. > +1 > > -Matej > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > On Dec 28, 2007 11:02 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 28, 2007 2:29 AM, Juergen Donnerstag > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 28, 2007 2:15 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > But how can we know that for some pages users don't want to force the > > > > > quirks mode? > > > > > I'm big -1 on stripping the xml declaration for all pages by default. > > > > > > > > That is exactly my point. It most certainly will break existing > > > applications. > > > Agree on that. > > > > > > > > > That would break any application where the users are relying on <xml > > > > > declaration making IE use quirks mode. > > > > > > > > I wonder how many users actually do that compared to (IMO rather weird > > > > thinking) that a proper xml document will swicth IE into quirks mode > > > > (which is the old buggy render mode). How many users actually have the > > > > intend to deliberately switch into quirks mode rather than the other > > > > way around (use a std compliant mode). > > > > > > It's not that unusual really. It's a way to ensure that all browsers > > > use border-box box-sizing. Since IE doesn't support the border-box css > > > attribute, if you want to have sizes calculated like that you need to > > > force ie to go to quirks mode. I certainly don't think we can change > > > thing like this silently. And I don't even thing we have a reason for > > > it. > > > > > > Right now the problem why error pages doesn't work with IE really is > > > the comment between <xml declaration and doctype. I've tested it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should focus on the problem itself, and that is the > > > > > Apache header between the <?xml declaration and doctype which is what > > > > > completely breaks IE. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure this is true. Anything, including the xml decl, before > > > > the doctype makes IE switch into quirks mode. > > > Yes, but for our error pages we can either remove the xml declaration > > > or not care that it switches IE into quirksmode. Quirksmode is not the > > > real problem here. The problem is that right now IE doesn't show the > > > error pages at all, quirksmode or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I can see two simple solution. Either wraps the header comment > > > > > with <wicket:remove> or move the header comment after doctype. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure this will work. Did you try it already? > > > Yes, I've tried both. They both work and IE shows the pages properly. > > > > > > If we really want the behavior when you add an <xml header> to file > > > and then don't want to show it in ouput, we should have a way to > > > configure that per file, such as <wicket:stripXmlHeader/> somewhere in > > > the markup. > > > > > > -Matej > > > -Matej > > > > > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst > > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-rc2 is released > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-rc1/ > > >
