OK, then we're good to go. For my part, I'll start making pages that utilize
Jmol.js in XHTML 1.0 Strict if I can.
Bob
Miguel wrote:
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
--
Robert M. Hanson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 507-646-3107
Professor of Chemistry, St. Olaf College
1520 St. Olaf Ave., Northfield, MN 55057
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------
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
