Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors?

Reply
Thread Tools

Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors?

 
 
Neo Geshel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2007
NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.

Greetings!

I am in the process of creating a template for a site. The site will be
*true* XHTML 1.1. That is, it will validate as XHTML 1.1 on all pages,
it will make use of the UTF-8 character set, and it will (whenever
possible) be sent out with a mime-type of application/xhtml+xml. To
force standards-compliant mode in Internet Explorer, I am also making
use of the JavaScript IE7 compliance patch (http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/).

The problem that I am experiencing is with Internet Explorer. As anyone
with any serious Borg-like tendencies (i.e., the “pursuit of
perfection”) will tell you, Internet Explorer is incapable of handling
application/xhtml+xml; treating it instead as a downloadable file. There
is a workaround, however. XHTML pages *can* be treated as
application/xml in a pinch (it is not *dis*allowed, just discouraged;
unlike text/html which is disallowed for XHTML), and IE *does* recognize
this format. However, to prevent IE from either downloading it or
displaying the XML tree, one has to apply a very small XSLT transformation.

The problem that I have run across is that IE (with the version in
question depending on the machine) will throw an XML parsing error due
to the standard XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE:

<output>
The XML page cannot be displayed
Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error
and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter entity must be defined before it is used. Error processing
resource 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd...

%xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
-^
</output>

Now, on *my* machine, I have reworked the resulting output so that IE 6
and lower does not throw this error, despite being fed a normal DOCTYPE.
However, IE7 *does* have to be fed a *non-standard* DOCTYPE to avoid
throwing this error.

Since IE 6 and lower is being fed a normal XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE, I would
like to know if this error appears on any other person’s machine, when
they are using a version of IE less than 7. If you get this error with
your version of IE, I would like to know the following:

• Your version of IE
• Your OS (32-bit/64-bit), including service packs
• Your version of MSXMLS installed
• And the error message, if it differs significantly from above

Any and all comments about the *design* would also be appreciated.

The template can be found at http://www.bannerswarm.net/template.php

Please also note that the template is still under construction. While
the DOCTYPE in question will not change, the content and layout may
change suddenly and without warning.

TIA
...Geshel
--
************************************************** *******************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
************************************************** *******************
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sherm Pendley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2007
Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
> ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
> INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
> RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
> CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.


You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
that way.

Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?

My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
Problem solved.

Or, if you insist on using XHTML in spite of its many well-known problems,
don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
you how to avoid those problems in the first place.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neo Geshel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2007
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
>> ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
>> INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
>> RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
>> CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.

>
> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
> that way.


Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
preferable than multi-posting.

You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be unable
to see answers to the same post in another NG.

> Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?


It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,
especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I clearly
stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.

And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the more
people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated that I
discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my attempt to
“focus” people.

> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
> Problem solved.


I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.

> Or, if you insist on using XHTML in spite of its many well-known problems,


Its *many* well-know problems? I know of only two problems - Internet
Explorer’s inability to handle application/xhtml+xml, and (by proxy)
IE’s “quirks mode” problems with the XML Prologue (which can be fixed by
getting it to conduct an XSLT transformation on a document served up as
application/xml).

Otherwise, XHTML 1.1 works just fine for me.

> don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
> on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
> you how to avoid those problems in the first place.


Confusing cause and effect, are we? Having trouble with temporal
effects? You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one
has *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet. Try to
avoid time-travel in the future, k? Pardon the pun.

Cheers.
...Geshel
--
************************************************** *******************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
************************************************** *******************
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Hosking
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2007
Neo Geshel wrote:
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>> Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ

posts by arrogant bastards who think they're better than mere humans.

>>
>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
>> that way.

>
> Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
> years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
> preferable than multi-posting.


You are not excused to do something stupid and rude by threatening to do
something even more stupid and rude. And if you've really got 16 years
of experience of using the Internet, maybe you'd know how to narrow down
appropriate NGs. Or maybe that 16 years of Internet experience includes
only 16 minutes of USENET experience?

>
> You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
> would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be unable
> to see answers to the same post in another NG.


Um, thanks, but we already know what's wrong with multi-posting. What'd
you do, just Google this up in the last half-hour?

>> Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?

>
>
> It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,


....and yet, you came here; what's that say about you?

> especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
> tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I clearly
> stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.
>
> And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the more
> people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated that I
> discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my attempt to
> “focus” people.


Too bad you don't have a two-by-four you can whack us with, or maybe a
Taser; that'd get our attention. Pity you have to resort to such crude
means as using words and ALL CAPS.

>
>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
>> Problem solved.

>
>
> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
> differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.


Then induce *standards* mode. Combine this with Sherm's suggestion and
(Please pay attention here; I WANT YOU TO *FOCUS*) you get HTML in
standards mode.

>
> You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one
> has *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet.


I suggest you not expect a long line of helpful folks. Dearie.

--
John
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sherm Pendley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2007
Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
>>> ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
>>> INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
>>> RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
>>> CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.

>>
>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
>> that way.

>
> Would you rather I multi-post?


No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.

>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
>> Problem solved.

>
> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
> differences between browsers


This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.

>> don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
>> on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
>> you how to avoid those problems in the first place.

>
> Confusing cause and effect, are we?


No, "we" aren't. You seriously think you're the first person to try this?
Do you think that the advice given to everyone else who has tried it will
be any different for you?

Get over yourself and type "XHTML" into a Google Groups search. Then read
and learn.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neo Geshel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2007
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>> Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
>>>> ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
>>>> INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
>>>> RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
>>>> CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.
>>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
>>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
>>> that way.

>> Would you rather I multi-post?

>
> No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
> in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.


okay, .misc was useless. I agree. But .site-design was chosen because,
had you actually read to the end of the post, you would have seen that I
am also requesting design critiques.

But alt.html is one of the busiest NG for html/xhtml. And looking for a
relevant response always boils down to the law of averages.

As for both multiposting *and* crossposting being inappropriate, let’s
see what Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Hmm.... I appear to be a rather good Netcitizen when it comes to
multi/crossposting. If I were to drop the .misc, then all of the other
NG’s would be on-topic for my *original* post. In fact, I could probably
have added alt.html.critique, due to my request for a design critique at
the end of the post.

>>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
>>> Problem solved.

>> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
>> differences between browsers

>
> This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
> you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
> that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.


There is no DTD that can, by itself, do as good a job as { XHTML 1.1 DTD
+ [application/xml for IE | application/xhtml+xml for everything else] +
XML Prolog [ + XSLT Transformation for IE] } across the “big three” of
IE, Firefox and Opera.

Besides, I have, at least on my own machine, achieved “purity”. I have
managed to implement a perfect XHTML 1.1 page, conforming to all of the
XHTML 1.1 specs, that works across both IE and Mozilla/Opera.

However, because I have multiple copies of IE on my machine (from v3 to
v7), I am unsure if my copies of [5 <= IE < 7] are providing accurate
results, and all the other WinDoze machines available to me are XP
boxen, and those have already upgraded to IE 7. Hence my request for
field results from other people using [5 <= IE < 7], which was the *only
thing* I actually requested in my post. You would have realized this,
had you actually taken the time to read the entire post.

Should I start spoon-feeding the Usenet community the specifics of what
I look for? Is it really that hard to properly read a post before
answering??

>>> don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
>>> on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
>>> you how to avoid those problems in the first place.

>> Confusing cause and effect, are we?

>
> No, "we" aren't. You seriously think you're the first person to try this?
> Do you think that the advice given to everyone else who has tried it will
> be any different for you?


No, but I make it a point to mention what I have already tried, what I
have discounted because I am not going in that direction, and what my
objectives are. The problem I run into is that people tend to answer my
posts with advice that mirrors things I have clearly mentioned that I
have already done; as if they failed to read the whole post to begin
with. Hence, my attempt to “focus” readers into the same direction that
I am attempting to go.

> Get over yourself and type "XHTML" into a Google Groups search. Then read
> and learn.


I wasn’t looking for advice. I had clearly stated in my post that I was
looking for *field results* from the link I posted. I wanted to see if
people managed to run into any errors that I haven’t been able to.

To wit: The site works just fine with [5 <= IE < 7] on my machine. Does
it work fine on your copy of [5 <= IE < 7] too? If yes, ignore post and
move on. If no, tell me (along with specifics), so I know that there is
at least *one* person out there that has a problem.

Or in other words, RTFP.

Cheers.
...Geshel
--
************************************************** *********************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
************************************************** *********************
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neo Geshel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2007
John Hosking wrote:
> Neo Geshel wrote:
>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>
>>> Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ

> posts by arrogant bastards who think they're better than mere humans.
>
>>>
>>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
>>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
>>> that way.

>>
>> Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
>> years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
>> preferable than multi-posting.

>
> You are not excused to do something stupid and rude by threatening to do
> something even more stupid and rude. And if you've really got 16 years
> of experience of using the Internet, maybe you'd know how to narrow down
> appropriate NGs. Or maybe that 16 years of Internet experience includes
> only 16 minutes of USENET experience?
>
>>
>> You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
>> would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be
>> unable to see answers to the same post in another NG.

>
> Um, thanks, but we already know what's wrong with multi-posting. What'd
> you do, just Google this up in the last half-hour?


No, it was an attempt to contrast what would be, at the most, a minor
gaffe (when cross-posting incorrectly), with a major faux-pas
(multi-posting). Cross-posting, when done correctly and in moderation,
is a healthy way of posting on Usenet. It only becomes damaging when
there are excessive (5+) groups targeted, and when most groups (if not
all) are completely off-topic with the content of the post. Neither case
matches my method of cross-posting.

But hey, if you really want to learn about cross-posting and
multi-posting *yourself*, here’s the article I found most succinct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
cross-posting.

>>> Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?

>>
>>
>> It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,

>
> ...and yet, you came here; what's that say about you?


And all you provide is ridicule and sarcasm. What does that say about you?

>> especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
>> tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I
>> clearly stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.
>>
>> And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the
>> more people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated
>> that I discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my
>> attempt to “focus” people.

>
> Too bad you don't have a two-by-four you can whack us with, or maybe a
> Taser; that'd get our attention. Pity you have to resort to such crude
> means as using words and ALL CAPS.


I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
*before* answering. Tried it for the first time today, will see how it
ends up. If I actually get some *field results* (the objective of my
post, had anyone actually read it), then I might consider using such a
“focusing” method again. If I get no on-topic and appropriate replies,
then obviously, I will abandon that method.

>>
>>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
>>> Problem solved.

>>
>>
>> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
>> differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.

>
> Then induce *standards* mode. Combine this with Sherm's suggestion and
> (Please pay attention here; I WANT YOU TO *FOCUS*) you get HTML in
> standards mode.


And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
me, on my own machine. I have gotten everything to work perfectly, In
full “standards compliance” mode, to boot. My post was about getting
*field results* from anyone who can view the link with [5 <= IE < 7]
that is not multi-installed beside IE 7.

Or didn’t you read that far?

>> You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one has
>> *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet.

>
> I suggest you not expect a long line of helpful folks. Dearie.


Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.

...Geshel
--
************************************************** *********************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
************************************************** *********************
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sherm Pendley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2007
Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
>>>> read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
>>>> that way.
>>> Would you rather I multi-post?

>>
>> No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
>> in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.

>
> okay, .misc was useless. I agree. But .site-design was chosen because,
> had you actually read to the end of the post, you would have seen that
> I am also requesting design critiques.


I did read the whole post. Why would I respond to something I hadn't read?
You asked for advice about technical problems you're having with XHTML, not
about the layout, navigability, color palette, or other design issues.

> But alt.html is one of the busiest NG for html/xhtml.


I didn't say it wasn't busy, I said it was useless. Alt.html is where amateurs
go where they can feed of one another's ignorance without being interrupted by
facts and good advice.

Come to think of it, the advice you'd get there is probably exactly what you'd
call "proper" - workarounds and hacks that compensate to varying degrees for a
basically flawed idea, with no one pointing out to you that it'd be much easier
to simply avoid the problem in the first place.

>>>> My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
>>>> Problem solved.
>>> I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
>>> differences between browsers

>>
>> This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
>> you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
>> that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.

>
> There is no DTD that can, by itself, do as good a job as { XHTML 1.1
> DTD + [application/xml for IE | application/xhtml+xml for everything
> else] + XML Prolog [ + XSLT Transformation for IE] } across the “big
> three” of IE, Firefox and Opera.


First you come here talking of the difficulties your "solution" is causing
you, now you're claiming it does "as good a job" of avoiding quirks mode as
the recommended solution. Make up your mind.

Plain HTML with a DTD that triggers standards-mode requires no browser
sniffing, no games with the MIME type, and no XSLT transforms to make it
work with IE. Something that does require you to jump through these hoops
is most certainly *not* doing as good a job.

> Should I start spoon-feeding the Usenet community the specifics of
> what I look for? Is it really that hard to properly read a post before
> answering??


I know what you're looking for - you're looking for the magic silver bullet
that will make XHTML work perfectly for every browser.

There is none. Get over it.

> Hence, my attempt to “focus” readers into the same direction
> that I am attempting to go.


You are going in the wrong direction; no amount of "focus" will change that.

> I wasn’t looking for advice.


Too bad. This is usenet - you get advice whether you want it or not. One
would think, in all those many years of experience you claim to have, you
would have learned that.

> Or in other words, RTFP.


I did read it. I'm just not the slightest bit interested in helping you jump
through the hoops you're creating for yourself with your stubborn insistence
on using XHTML. It offers no benefits to you or the end user, and (as you've
discovered) cannot be delivered in a reliably compatible fashion.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sherm Pendley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2007
Neo Geshel <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
> cross-posting.


You were off-topic in two of the four groups you posted to.

> I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
> *before* answering.


Being polite works well for that. Much better, in fact, than shouting
at and insulting the people whose attention you're hoping to retain.

> And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
> me, on my own machine.


Because first, it's not backwards. It's still the standard, and XHTML
hasn't yet gotten to the point where it's reliably compatible.

And second, the point is that, however well XHTML may work on your own
machine, there are a *lot* of other machines out there on which it
does not work, and won't in the forseeable future.

> Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.


Oh, so you get to decide when the thread's over now, and who's allowed
to post to it? Who made you King of Usenet?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neo Geshel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-21-2007
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> First you come here talking of the difficulties your "solution" is causing
> you, now you're claiming it does "as good a job" of avoiding quirks mode as
> the recommended solution. Make up your mind.


An analysis of my original post.

First paragraph after the “Greetings”:
I explain the objective of what I have accomplished: a “perfect”
XHTML 1.1 implementation.

Second paragraph:
I explain the problems that I had (past tense) ran into with
implementing XHTML 1.1 on IE, and provided an explanation of my
workaround for IE’s inability to handle application/xhtml+xml, and why I
had to use application/xml instead of text/html.

Third paragraph:
An explanation of the error I ran into when I *tried* (again, past
tense) to use the XSLT transformation with a *standard* XHTML doctype,
with the actual on-screen example bounded by <output></output>.

Fourth paragraph:
MY SOLUTION (already implemented): An “enhanced” XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE
just for IE that is W3C-approved. SUCCESS! I have achieved a “perfect”
XHTML implementation!

Fifth paragraph (and bulleted list):
MY BIG WORRY, AND THEREFORE WHAT I AM REQUESTING: Does this solution
work only for me? Does my setup (IE7, with side-by-side installs of IE 5
to 6) work simply because IE 5 to 6 exist in a side-by-side install? And
finally, does this example of full XHTML implementation work with
*anyone* who has *just* IE6, or *just* IE5.5, or *just* IE5?
Essentially, “if anyone who receives the error message (as seen
above) when viewing my example with IE, could they please tell me”.

Final paragraphs:
An open offer to critique the design, a link to the page in question,
and a warning that the design might change without notice.


Summary of this analysis:
Paragraph 1 was the overview of my objective.
Paragraphs 2 through 4 was background information (a description of
the problems I encountered and the process I used to achieve success).
Paragraph 5 was a request for others to double-check my work to
ensure I was right - that IE 5-7 works flawlessly with the example, and
does not throw an error.



Was my post really so complicated that you couldn’t figure it out? How
close to pablum do I need to make my posts so that they can be
understood? At no time did I ever ask for help in fixing a problem. The
problem was already fixed, and I took pains to make that clear. What I
wanted was for people to double-check my work, to see if IE from v5
onward worked correctly, without throwing an XSLT processing error.

...Geshel
--
************************************************** *********************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
************************************************** *********************
 
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
Internet Explorer 8: C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe vs C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe Nathan Sokalski Windows 64bit 16 02-22-2010 08:31 AM
XML::Parser Installation error: XML-Parser-2.34 Sean Perl Misc 3 10-03-2006 01:23 AM
XML::Parser Installation error: XML-Parser-2.34 Sean Perl Misc 0 10-02-2006 06:20 PM
Different results parsing a XML file with XML::Simple (XML::Sax vs. XML::Parser) Erik Wasser Perl Misc 5 03-05-2006 10:09 PM
XML-Parser to XML-Parser communication (encoding issues?) arne Perl Misc 0 09-13-2005 12:53 PM



Advertisments