David Leader wrote:
A couple more points.
1. I forgot to mention that the xml pragma throws IE Windows into Quirks
mode.
So it does! But it's more strange than that. This is only true if the page is
delivered with text/html from the server (typically by using the .htm or .html
extension rather than .xhtml) -- which means "ignore XML" anyway.
2. By chance someone on another list posted an authoratitive piece on
XHTML. It turns out that if you markup a page as XHTML and give it a
.xhtml extension then Firefox will *not* render it if it has errors. I
quote selectively:
Sam Marshall wrote:
You can however use XHTML **1.0**, serve as text/html, and still follow
the standards. If you do this, you should:
But there is little to gain from this. You might as well call it what it is
then, HTML 4.01 rather than, as some say, "pretend" you are sending out XML. I'm
pretty sure NO browser will treat a document as XML if the server mime type is
"text/html" regardless of what is in the file. What is described below is a nice
way to test this -- files from your hard drive with the xhtml extension are
assumed XML by Mozilla (and refused load into IE) because there is no other way
except file extension to determine mime type. I've recently learned that our
servers also by default take .xhtml files as XML and send them out with
application/xhtml+xml headers.
What's pretty obvious to me now is that:
a) There is no need to go to XHTML -- pretending or actual -- unless you really
do have XML data and are looking for a browser interface to that data that will
work on some selected browser in an environment you can control.
b) The alternative, if you want to discipline yourself, is HTML 4.01 strict.
This is pretty strict -- no frame, iframe, or font tags, very disciplined
placement of text within only certain elements, no target, wrap, align, or
valign attributes, no name attribute for "form" or "a" tags, no forms without
action attribute, heavy use of styles....
This all derives from my asking Miguel, "What is our target standard for
Jmol.js?" To which he answered "XHTML 1.0 strict." Probably -- more realisticly
-- we should say "HTML 4.01 strict." This is certainly true of Jmol.js today. I
brought the documentation up to HTML 4.01 strict, but right now it "pretends" to
be XHTML 1.0 strict. Which it isn't quite, because true XHTML/XML browsers have
been designed inconsistently (i.e. some but not all) to not accept
document.write() and/or document.innerHTML -- the two means by which the current
Jmol.js can operate. There's another way applets can be written to a page that
is SUPPOSED to be compatible with XML (using Document Object Model "node"
creation), but so far Miguel, Toby White, and I can't get it to work in much
other than Mozilla.
Bob
--
--
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
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Jmol-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
