The correct content-type for XHTML is
"application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8". I
always put the following in my XHTML pages...
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xml:lang="en-US">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type"
content="application/x-_javascript_" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type"
content="text/css" />
The one exception to the above is that, even though I
specify "application/x-_javascript_" above, I put the following
in my <script> tags for IE compatibility..
<script type="text/_javascript_">
And, like I said in a previous message,
<script></scipt> is the syntax understood by most browsers
and, I think it is for good reason. I believe that the HTML4 spec
defines it this way and I don't think that the move to XHTML made this
an, optionally, empty tag. The fact that Mozilla understands
<script /> does not necessarily mean IE is buggy in not
understanding it (just a bit more stupid). Actually, IE really
doesn't understand XHTML anyway. In fact, the way any XML is
treated by IE is to transform it, internally, into standard HTML for
display by the HTML layout engine. Yep, IE really doesn't directly
support XML, let alone XHTML whereas Mozilla does.
So, can anyone confirm that if an XHTMLScriptElement is added to the
XHTML DOM that it is written as <script></script> instead of
<script />? If it is writing it as <script /> then we
will have a major browser incompatibility. It should definitely be
written as <script></script>.
Jake
At 12:20 PM 4/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
We've been using XHTML+XMLC for 9
months, and we too encountered that
problem. My solution, was to do it this way:
<script src="" IE Sucks
--></script>
every place we want to use a "self-terminating script
tag".
Having said that, I'm also curious as to what the document type
you're
sending down in your request headers. Even though we produce XHTML,
we're
really telling it we are an html document. It's quite possible
that
sending the correct "Content-type" header down will work.
Problem is, I
don't know what the correct type REALLY is.
> Hi,
>
> as you may recall from my occassional posts here, I have been trying
to
> use XHTML with Enhydra for several months already. I patched
various
> things in Enhydra/XMLC (some fixes, some hacks) in order to get
it
> working and was almost happy - until I decided to try also
non-Gecko
> browsers. After some hours of debugging IE6 problems I managed
to
> isolate a possible bug in SCRIPT tag handling:
>
>
http://www.prevue.cz/ie6bug.html
>
> For me it seems as a clear evidence that I wasted my time on the
XHTML
> for nothing. If the latest browser with 95% market share is unable
to
> load _javascript_ file then XHTML is completely unusable.
>
> I don't think XMLC/Enhydra would be modified in the way it outputs
the
> SCRIPT tag just to fix this buggy behaviour of IE. Or am I wrong
and
> such patch would be accepted in the mainline?
>
> Anyway, I'll most probably convert my XHTML files to HTML, change
the
> XMLC parser back to the default one and be happy again.
>
> Petr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> XMLC mailing list
> XMLC@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://www.enhydra.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/xmlc
_______________________________________________
XMLC mailing list
XMLC@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.enhydra.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/xmlc
| 