|
|
Posted by cwdjrxyz on 01/19/06 02:56
cwdjrxyz wrote:
> Toby Inkster wrote:
> > cwdjrxyz wrote:
> >
> > > As the IE6 does not support true xhtml served properly and apparently
> > > neither will the upcoming IE7, you have nothing to fear for your
> > > Safari. You can start to worry when IE supports true xhtml and xhtml
> > > takes off on many sites, if it ever does.
> >
> > Safari has good support XHTML support, and has done since it was in beta
> > testing.
>
> I was under the impression that Safari would support xhtml also until I
> received the answer that it was being sent the html 4.01 strict version
> when using the auto page.. Unfortunately, I can not download Safari to
> my Windows XP for testing. At least for the auto select page, the
> Sarfari got the xhtml 4.01 version of the page which it can handle. The
> critical question is did the Safari accept the page served as true
> xhtml 1.1 using the extension/ mime pairs on the server of .xhtml
> application/xhtml+xml and .xml application/xml. Of course pages on the
> web with these mime type/extension pairs are still rather rare, and
> many likely never have downloaded such a page before. However, for the
> main xhtml aware browsers such as Opera, Firefox, Netscape, and
> Mozilla, all of the pages are handled just as they should be.
>
> A lady who has Konqueror sent me an email. She gets the html 4.01 code
> from the auto select page. However her worry was that her browser
> supports xml. Since this could confuse some, I will snip a portion of
> my answer to her below.
>
> Thanks very much for your feedback. I believe that your browser does
> not support a page served with the mime types application/xml or
> application/xhtml+xml. However it supports serving as application/html.
> These various methods do not mean a browser can not handle xml code if
> it is written in a proper manner for a browser. For example, IE6 will
> only accept a page served with the mime type application/html. However
> you can use xml code on it if coded in a way that IE6 likes. You likely
> have never noticed problems in displaying xml because nearly all
> present web pages are served as application/html. Just because you
> write a page in xhtml 1.1 does not mean it will be served as true
> xhtml. That will only happen if you put pairs of extensions and mime
> types on your server such as .xhtml application/xhtml+xml. If you use
> an extension .html for the xhtml 1.1 page, it just gets served as
> application/xhtml.
I examined the php include in the auto page that processes the header
information. It is set up to use the true xhtml page only if it finds
the mime type application/xhtml+html mentioned by the browser as a
possible application when the server and browser first connect. If no
mention of this mime type is found, it takes the safe "else" path to
serve as html 4.01 strict, since anything else would require elaborate
browser and version detection that is far from safe. It is quite
posible a browser vendor could make an "xhtml ready" browser. That is,
it would handle xhtml served as html(which is no big deal), but it
could accept true xhtml served as such at some future time when the
browser vendor thinks the browser is ready and adds the correct mime
type for it in the header information the browser provides the server.
Such a "xhtml ready" browser might or might not support a page served
only as application/xhtml+xml or as application/xml. It might be
possible to hack around this if there really are any "xhtml ready"
browsers. However I can not afford to add extra computers to support
some of the browsers of interest, these browsers are not used very much
yet, and there would be many possible problems in detecting which
browser and version you had. Thus I am content to let any possible
"xhtml ready" browers receive xhtml 4.01 strict for now.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|