Matthew Thomas wrote: > > Please lose your fixation with Microsoft. This is nothing to do with > what some company `thinks' a plain XML file looks like;
Hey, I have no such fixation; the above comment was made in the context of discussing the correctness of MSIE's behaviour when it renders an XML file which specifies no style. I don't believe that discussing whether it is correct or not constitutes a "fixation". I was trying to point out that you were (at least trivially) wrong when you argued that IE's behaviour is correct because it does "... what people want and expect, instead of what they don't want or expect". > Showing it as an expandable > tree would be a good idea, *for Mozilla*, no matter how Microsoft chose > to display it. Sure, I have no problem with that, but that was't what what being discussed, in that part of the post. Geeze, you really need to lose your overraction fixation. ;) > > That's exactly what View Source is for. > So what is view source for when viewing a text file? What if a file containing XML or HTML markup is served as text/plain? Moz renders it as text and view source displays the same thing as the browser window. <rant> The reason Moz applies style to HTML is because the style for HTML is well known. The HMTL REC defines and suggests style for HTML elements, and Moz can follow that. Moz can only apply style to XML if it too is well known (XHTML, SVG, MathML, etc) or if it is specified using, say, an xml-stylesheet PI. If it has neither then these, then sure, apply some default style to it. You can't call it correct though, and at least make it configurable, through a hidden pref or something similar to userStyle.css or userChrome.css, so people who (sanely enough) don't like their XML initially displayed as a tree can fix it. </rant> Mike. -- Mike Gratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976. <http://web.vee.net/>
