> I'd be happy to do more with this. (checking, I mean). I think I know how
> now,
> and as of yesterday I understand what that gobblygook means. I'm
> interested in
> making sure Jmol.js does conform (except for "mayscript", I guess)
There are no issues with 'mayscript' on modern browsers.
On modern browsers, the html code that is generated uses the <object> tag
and I believe that it is fully compliant ... no issues surrounding
'mayscript'
> at least to XHTML 1.0 transitional.
I believe that for modern browsers, the html code that is generated
conforms with STRICT.
> If we wanted it to conform to STRICT, then we
> would have
> to FORCE the object tag and have some sort of Jmol.js option for doing
> that. Like,
>
> jmolSetAppletType("object")
>
> or
>
> jmolSetXHTML("strict")
I must be missing something ...
I do not understand why it is necessary to force Jmol.js to generate
strict code.
Q: Is this a limitation of the tool that is used for checking?
> Strict means something very specific in this context. No applet tags,
There are no <applet> tags.
> no
> <input>
> tags directly within <FORM> tags, no NAME attribute for FORM, that sort of
> thing. Best not to get involved unless you have to.
Not sure what these mean.
>> At some point ... perhaps soon ... Jmol.js will explicitly drop support
>> for older browsers (e.g. Netscape 4.7)
>
> about time.
That list of 'unsupported browsers' would probably eliminate most versions
of Safari that are in the field.
>>>What I'm thinking is that <applet mayscript="mayscript"> is NOT allowed
>>> in
>>>xhtml1-transitional, even though <applet> is.
>>
>> Jmol.js no longer generates <applet> tags for modern browsers.
>
> I wasn't sure if your browser checks went so far as to guarantee that. OK,
> that's excellent. Again, a VERY STRONG selling point for using Jmol.js.
Yes, I guarantee that.
>>>Q: So if I include a transitional DOCTYPE, and Jmol.js throws in an
>>><applet
>>>mayscript> tag for some browser on the fly, is that a problem?
>>
>>
>> I don't think so ... I think that backwards compatibility is a feature,
>> not a bug.
>
> As long as the browser check works, shouldn't be a problem.
The browser checks work.
If they don't then it is a bug that will be fixed.
Miguel
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Jmol-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
