|
|
Posted by cwdjrxyz on 01/19/06 20:23
cwdjrxyz wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > <1137645801.740065.236050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "cwdjrxyz" <spamtrap1@cwdjr.info> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/autoForceXhtml.php
> >
> > This link displays in Mac browsers: Safari, the latest Mozilla
> > (for X) and latest Opera (for X) in the source:
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
> > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
> > <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
> >
> > while in the browser, your message (in white on blue):
> >
> > This page is automatically forced to be served as
> > applicatiom/xhtml+xml no matter what the browser says it supports
> > are likes to support. Thus any browser that really will not
> > support true xhtml 1.1 properly served will not display the page.
> > A browser that is completely "xhtml ready" that really could
> > serve true xhtml but usually will not because it does not mention
> > application/xhtml +xml support in the header exchange between it
> > and the server may be smoked out by this approach. I would
> > greatly appreciate knowing if anyone finds a browser that gives
> > you only a html 4.01 strict page when you use the auto page and
> > gives you an xhtml 1.1 page when you use this page.
>
> Thanks again. This is nearly, but not absolute, evidence that Safari
> does not provide the mime type application/xhtml+xml as an option,
> since it takes the 4.01 route using the auto page and many other
> browsers will take the true xhtml route if offered at all by the
> browser by the header/server exchange. If I had a Safari browser, I
> could write many test php header programs to run down all of the
> details, but I do not. Whatever the reason that Safari responds the way
> it does, at least no harm will be done if it gets a page as html 4.01
> strict rather than true xhtml 1.1
There is a chance that Safari might say that it supports
application/xml and not say that it supports application/xhtml+xml.
This would be an acceptable method to support xhtml, but I have never
seen it used by a browser before. Anyway, I have a new auto page at
http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/autoWithXML.php . This checks to see
if the browser offers either application/xhtml+xml support or
application/xml support. If it does you get an xhtml 1.1 page. Else you
get an html 4.01 strict page. This page displays as xhtml 1.1 on Opera,
Mozilla, Netscape, Firefox, and the W3C Amaya browsers. It displays as
html 4.01 strict on the IE6 and Netscape 4.8, as it should. It would be
interesting to see what Safari does. I would be very surprised if
Sarfari would say that it supports application/xml rather than
application/xhtml+xml, but Apple could have gone avant-garde and become
one of the first browsers on the block to do this.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|