Re: still too early for XHTML :-((: msg#00042 java.enhydra.xmlc

On St, 2003-04-09 at 15:29, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> In order to prove it is a hack

It's not real hack but it is a browser specific workaround. Remember
when I suggested to add an empty space before "/>" in order to make it
more browser compatible? And Mark D. said that it's not necessary, that
I can as well go for real HTML if I have problems with XHTML in
browsers..

> point out which other element this affects. It is only a "hack" to do
> <script></script> in the sense that you feel you shouldn't have to.

right.

> Doing <script /> breaks the rules set by HTML4.01 so doing anything
> other than <script></script> is just wrong even though <script /> is
> valid XML syntax. XHTML1.0 obeys more specific rules than generic
> XML.

Sounds like you consider XHTML 1.0 buggy as IMHO it allows the <script/>
syntax.

I personally don't care. As you might have read in latest message from
me, I patched enhydra in order to get <script></script> and nothing else
as I simply have to support IE and I want to feed it with XHTML. And my
tests confirmed that this is the way to go - everything seems to work OK
in both IE and Mozilla (Opera 7.03 is another story).

All I want to achieve is to be able to use *unmodified* Enhydra releases
so my main aim is to get all my patches accepted by the Enhydra/XMLC
maintainers. If you all are happy with the <script></script> specific
support and will add it to XMLC CVS ASAP then I am more than happy.

> > this wasn't about doctype. Enhydra didn't allow me to include "ID"
> > to <TITLE>. Latest XHTML 1.0 allows that.

> Why would you want to do that?

Got HTML files from our designer and the XMLC couldn't compile it. He
told me his files are 100% OK and really - the validator agreed. So I
had to fix the compiler, that's obvious.

> Ok, I've never actually compiled my markup as XHTML. So you are
> saying that without doing anything on your own, you get a doctype set
> at the top of your page upon output?

yes. But I can't swear that this doctype is generated by enhydra - it
might as well be leftover from the original html file. In the XHTML mode
the XMLC preserves the original layout. It is very unusual - compared to
the one longish line (the HTML output from XMLC/Enhydra).

> mistyped because "text/html" is obviously a "content type"

that's the thing in the header of the data stream. When it was
"text/xml" browsers didn't work (javascript couldn't handle forms etc).
The first few lines of my dynamically generated pages are as follows:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd";>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>

> > > > 6) URLRewriter does not work
> > >
> > > What was the issue with this one? I don't remember.
> >
> > URLRewriter is not called since the XHTML page is instanceof
> > XMLObject.
> > I posted a longish thread (replying to myself most of the time)
> > about
> > all that one or two weeks ago.
>
> I think you mean "is *not* an instance of XMLObject", right?

No. It _is_ an instance of that. Please find my original message posted
here less than 10 days ago.

Petr

Previous by Date:	Re: still too early for XHTML :-((, dcorbin
Next by Date:	Re: still too early for XHTML :-((, Petr Stehlik
Previous by Thread:	Re: still too early for XHTML :-((, Petr Stehlik
Next by Thread:	Re: still too early for XHTML :-((, Jacob Kjome
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]