|
|
Posted by Neo Geshel on 04/21/07 20:47
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> Neo Geshel <gotcha@geshel.org> writes:
>
>> <output>
>> The XML page cannot be displayed
>> Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error
>> and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Parameter entity must be defined before it is used. Error processing
>> resource 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd...
>>
>> %xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
>> -^
>> </output>
>>
>> Now, on *my* machine, I have reworked the resulting output so that IE
>> 6 and lower does not throw this error
>
> Mine does.
>
>> • Your version of IE
>
> Reported as 6.0.2600.0000.xpclient.010817-1148
>
>> • Your OS (32-bit/64-bit), including service packs
>
> 32-bit XP, no service packs.
>
> That's not as dumb as it sounds, btw. I use this instance of XP for
> testing purposes only, not for daily use. It runs in a virtualized
> sandbox, it's behind a firewall that blocks all incoming connections,
> and attempts at outgoing connections bring up an alert in the host
> OS and have to be approved individually.
>
>> • Your version of MSXMLS installed
>
> No idea. As I said, I've installed no updates, so whatever originally
> shipped with XP.
>
>> • And the error message, if it differs significantly from above
>
> It's identical.
>
> Also, Safari 2.0.4 shows a completely blank white page.
>
> So, even after what sounds like a great deal of work on your part to
> work around the limitations of XHTML, the result *still* isn't even on
> par with HTML.
>
> Further testing shows that a simple automated translation to HTML 4.01
> strict results in a page that *does* render reliably in all the browsers
> I have at hand, including the ones that choke on the XHTML version. The
> tested browsers all report standards mode rendering for the HTML also.
>
> That being the case, I stand by my previous assertion. Trying to "fix"
> XHTML is an exercise in futility, when simply using HTML to begin with
> is both easier and more reliable.
>
> sherm--
>
Thank you!! This is exactly what I need.
So, to confirm: are you saying that your XP is a default, un-upgraded
“virgin” install, pre-SP1? That is a very unusual setup these days, and
that alone *might* explain why you got the error message; but I’ll
consider your experience to be a significant first warning that I have
additional issues. My first Canary in this coal mine, as it were.
Could you also provide me with your browser’s user-agent? While I have
no intention of doing any sniffing based off of it (seeing as it can be
so easily spoofed... HTTP-ACCEPT is *far* more reliable than
HTTP-USER-AGENT for determining XHTML support), I wouldn’t mind seeing
what your browser’s UA looks like.
AS for Safari, I just discovered it for myself this morning. AFAIK, it’s
because Safari needs to be served application/xhtml+xml in order to go
into XHTML 1.1 mode. For some reason it doesn’t provide that mime-type
in its HTTP-ACCEPT response, but *does* provide application/xml, which
is why it is being served that. Strange.
That Canary is getting louder. Now all I need is additional
confirmations from other people and other versions of IE. After all,
just one thump on the head doesn’t mean the sky is falling.
Thanks.
...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]
|