Re: Content-type for XHTML (was: XMLC, setEnableXTHMLCompatibilty)

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 10:15, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> At 08:58 AM 10/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >On Wednesday 08 October 2003 02:15, Jacob Kjome wrote:
> > > Hi David,

> >Should really need the Namespace declaration?  Shouldn't the Content-type
> >(not
> >to mention the document type) be adequate?  (My question here is, "isnt
> > this a minor Mozilla bug? )
>
> XHTML is XML.  If you don't provide a namespace, you have tag soup.  Keep
> in mind that XHTML allows for other types of XML being part of the document
> (based on other dtd's).  If it just assumed all tags were XHTML, then this
> extensibility wouldn't be possible.  Again, Mozilla is doing the right
> thing and IE isn't even using an XML parser when evaluates XHTML.  Even
> when IE is given an XML document (with the mime type of text/xml) which
> points to an XSLT file and is transformed, the result is rendered using the
> HTML parser, not the XML parser.  Don't let IE's sloppy behavior fool you
> into thinking that Mozilla's strict behavior is incorrect.

But it's not assuming.  I've given it a DTD, and since there is no namespace 
reference, it's clear that all tags are in the "default" namespace.

My thought was, in suggesting this, was that the content-type DOES tell 
Mozilla that it is xhtml.  And the DocType says it's XHTML.  And you're 
saying that I have to provide something else that tells it that it is XHTML.  
Just seems redundant.  I though the purpose of a namespace was to avoid "name 
clashes", not to declare format.

> > > I hate IE so much!!!!
> >
> >Is there perhaps some other Content-Type that would make IE understand it,
> >even if it's non-standard?
>
> Well, if it is non-standard, then it wouldn't work with any browser other
> than IE.  

If the Content-type was the ONLY difference, it would be minor to make a 
change based on UserAgent.

> Pandering to IE's buggy behavior is not the right thing to
> do.  

I can understand it.

> Your only option for cross browser compatibility is to use the
> text/html mime type and the change I suggested above.  I'll try to do this
> today.  I'd be willing to release an XMLC-2.2.3 for this issue alone,
> although it would be nice if other issues were found to fix before that
> happens.

There's no rush on MY account.  I've got a "version that works for us" going 
and that will surely hold us for a while.  We're not in production yet.  
2.2.3 release this quarter will probably be just fine.