Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby

Reply
Thread Tools

xhtml 1.1 anchor tags in Bobby

 
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2005
Adrienne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Look at HTTP_ACCEPT header, and if it supports
> application/xhtml+xml, then serve it such. I serve IE6 text/html
> because its HTTP_ACCEPT header does not include
> application/xhtml+xml.


So you mean you _ignore_ the browser's proud declaration "I swallow
everything", i.e. "*/*", as in

Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg,
application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/vnd.ms-excel,
application/msword, */*

It does not explicitly mention application/xhtml+xml. But neither does
it mention text/html. Thus, on the basis of the Accept string, you have
no more justification for sending text/html than you have for sending
application/xhtml+xml.

My point is just that you are really doing some browser sniffing, not
acting on the basis of the Accept header by the protocol. It would
actually be safer to try to recognize (guess) from the User-agent
and other identifying headers whether the browser is one of the
programs known to handle XHTML 1.1 in some tolerable way.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2005
Adrienne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Look at HTTP_ACCEPT header, and if it supports application/xhtml+xml,
>then serve it such. I serve IE6 text/html because its HTTP_ACCEPT header
>does not include application/xhtml+xml.


UA preference part of the accept header should be respected, it's there
for a reason. Most (all?) renderers that can handle both XHTML and Tag
soup are primarily Tag soup slurpers and have better capabilities as a
Tag soup slurper. For example Opera =<7.2x doesn't recognize character
references in X(HT)ML mode. Opera's accept header says that it *prefers*
HTML, so it should be served HTML.

>The only caveat is that for some browsers that do support the mime type,
>if there is an error in the markup, the page will not render except for
>the error.


More importantly the renderer most people want to use
application/xhtml+xml for (Gecko) currently refuses to render anything
until the document has completely downloaded. Incremental rendering is
an essential function on the web, network & server problems frequently
cause pages to load very slowly, or not completely, for Gecko users this
results in them staring at a blank viewport when the author serves the
document as application/xhtml+xml.

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lauri Raittila
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2005
in alt.html, Ashmodai wrote:
> Andy Dingley scribbled something along the lines of:


> > Secondly educate them on why Bobby is so broken as to be barely useful
> > as a measure of accessibility.


Does it still exist? I though it was replaced some gimmick that works
even worse. I evaluated my homepage twice, and got different results. It
is static page... (and it expires my sessions within 2 seconds, so I
never actually see what warnings are...)

> > Mainly though, I'd ditch 1.1 in favour of 1.0 strict.


> I wouldn't say XHTML 1.1 is harmful, IF the browser is capable of
> processing the right MIME type.


Well, as such situation is rare, and as even more rare is that support is
as good as XHTML1.0 as text/html, let alone real HTML4, I would think it
is harmful.

> If you want to stick to XHTML 1.1 (with an XHTML MIME type, i.e.
> application/xhtml+xml), and sending a HTML 4.01 Strict representation --
> which is easily possible with server-side scripting -- if
> the MIME type is not (explicitly) supported.


Do this so that you serve html4 strict by default with text/html, and
XHTML1.1 with application/xhtml+xml only if text/html is not
accepted[1], and I agree. Of course, atm latter is futile, but if you
already have it, it won't need much altering.

[1] You could be also trust browser if it says that it supports
application/xml+xhml better (using q values), but FF does that, and afaik
still doesn't have incremental rendering for it...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Support me, buy Opera:
https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/bu...tml?AID=882173
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2005
Spartanicus <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> UA preference part of the accept header should be respected, it's
> there for a reason.


Even if experience shows that's incorrect more often than not?

> For example Opera =<7.2x
> doesn't recognize character references in X(HT)ML mode.


Pardon? I've never heard of such a problem. But I know that Opera has
had problems with _entity_ references in XHTML. Actually even Opera
7.54 seems to fail to get entity references right if I use a DOCTYPE
that refers to my own copy of the XHTML DTD. Sounds like Opera still
handles the entity references in some kludge way.

> Opera's
> accept header says that it *prefers* HTML, so it should be served
> HTML.


At least Opera 7.54 seems to say:

Accept: text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml,
image/png, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, */*;q=0.1

It has the _same_ (implied) q value (of 1.0) for text/html and
application/xhtml+xml. The HTTP specification does not define the order
of values in an Accept header as significant, so I can't see what might
constitute an expressed preference here.

> More importantly the renderer most people want to use
> application/xhtml+xml for (Gecko) currently refuses to render
> anything until the document has completely downloaded.


That's certainly an efficiency problem. But Mozilla expresses a
preference of application/xhtml+xml over text/html (using q parameter).
If you intend to serve XHTML as XHTML _at all_, then this would surely
be the place to do so.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2005
"Jukka K. Korpela" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> UA preference part of the accept header should be respected, it's
>> there for a reason.

>
>Even if experience shows that's incorrect more often than not?


I see no justification for assuming that the majority of clients get the
preference wrong, or for ignoring the preference mechanism by only
looking for the presence of a string in the accept header as the OP
suggested.

The default assumption should be that the client's preference is
correct. Only in cases where a client's accept header is known to be
"incorrect" (applies to IE only afaik) or where following the preference
is known to have serious drawbacks such as when serving XHTML as XHTML
to Gecko should an exception be made.

>Actually even Opera
>7.54 seems to fail to get entity references right if I use a DOCTYPE
>that refers to my own copy of the XHTML DTD.


I can't judge if that is an Opera issue. Regardless I can't see the
relevance to this thread, using a SYSTEM XHTML doctype would be a very
rare case.

>> Opera's
>> accept header says that it *prefers* HTML, so it should be served
>> HTML.

>
>At least Opera 7.54 seems to say:
>
>Accept: text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml,
>image/png, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, */*;q=0.1
>
>It has the _same_ (implied) q value (of 1.0) for text/html and
>application/xhtml+xml. The HTTP specification does not define the order
>of values in an Accept header as significant, so I can't see what might
>constitute an expressed preference here.


You're right, last time I checked was with Opera 7.2 which does express
a preference for HTML:
Accept: text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml;q=0.9,
image/png, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, */*;q=0.1

>> More importantly the renderer most people want to use
>> application/xhtml+xml for (Gecko) currently refuses to render
>> anything until the document has completely downloaded.

>
>That's certainly an efficiency problem. But Mozilla expresses a
>preference of application/xhtml+xml over text/html (using q parameter).
>If you intend to serve XHTML as XHTML _at all_, then this would surely
>be the place to do so.


Authors should not make a choice that for Gecko users will result in the
loss of such an important feature.

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
XHTML 1.1, language and Bobby validator .:|:. HTML 6 12-23-2005 10:59 AM
Ping Bobby TechGeekPro MCSE 2 07-13-2004 03:54 PM
bobby approved? mark | r HTML 30 06-22-2004 08:00 AM
Bobby or something like that. Luigi Donatello Asero HTML 5 09-30-2003 01:42 PM
Bobby approved? T.J. HTML 3 09-08-2003 11:54 AM



Advertisments