|
|
Posted by Neo Geshel on 04/21/07 04:06
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).
***********************************************************************
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|