|
|
Posted by cwdjrxyz on 02/20/07 17:13
On Feb 20, 4:51 am, "j1mb0jay" <j...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:
> Please can you let me know what you think of the site. Its the first time I
> have used XHTML 1.1 and cuss seems to be hanging together.
>
> http://users.aber.ac.uk/jap6
>
> --
> Regards JJ (UWA)
There are 3 validation errors when checked as xhtml 1.1 at the W3C
html validator. The page is not served as html which is application/
xhtml+xml and not text/html as served. Thus the page as served is just
html. If it were properly served as xhtml it would not view on IE. If
served as true xhtml, you will have to put a mime type for xhtml on
the server such as associate the extension .xhtml or.xml with
application/xhtml+xml, since the mime type for html is already taken
as text/html. Then the page served as xhtml will not view on IE. You
must then either work on the header to detect if the page will accept
xhtml at all and automatically rewrite the page from xhtml to html
4.01 strict, using regular expressions and such if xhtml support is
not detected in the header exchange. Or you must write both an xhtml
page for IE and a few older browsers and an xhtml page for modern
browsers including Opera, Firefox, Netscape, Seamonkey, etc. Then an
introduction short html page would allow the user to select the page
to use. Or you could use Microsoft conditional comments to route to
the html page for IE and to the xhtml page for everything else. This
would of course miss a few older browsers. Don't blame the W3C for
this mess. The blame falls on Microsoft with their outmoded IE6
browser which does not support true xhtml, and neither doe their new
IE7! Yet Microsoft likely contributes more funds to the W3C than
anyone else and serves on several of their committees.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|