|
|
Posted by John Salerno on 01/26/06 05:21
cwdjrxyz wrote:
> John Salerno wrote:
>
>> So is there an actual .xhtml extension? All the XHTML pages I've seen
>> still have an .html extension, so does that mean they are being served
>> as HTML 4?
>
> Yes there is a .xhtml and also a .xml extension, but you may have to
> define these on your server if they are not installed there. For
> example, on the Unix Apache server I use, I go to the control panel,
> click on the mime icon, and in the extension text box enter ".xhtml"
> and in the mime type box enter "application/xhtml+xml". This may not be
> quite as easy to do on other types of servers are at some hosts.You
> will find both of these extension - mime type pairs mentioned at newer
> listings of mime types.
>
> For examples see: http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/xhtml11.xhtml ,
> http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/xhtml11.xml ,
> http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/html401strict.html ,
> http://www.cwdjr.info/extensions/auto.php .
>
> You will find that the Mozilla family browsers(Firefox, Netscape,
> Mozilla) and Opera like the .xhtml and .xml extensions, but IE6 does
> not and will not display the page. The page with the .php extension
> makes use of the server/browser exchange of information before any code
> is downloaded. If you look on the xhtml aware browsers mentioned above,
> you can see from the source code that what they receive is xhtml. If
> you use an IE6 and view the source, you will see that it gets html 4.01
> strict. However you would not have to use this as the option. You could
> even use a very early form of html, although I do not know why one
> would wish to do so.
>
> So after you view the page served as .xhtml on the browsers mentioned
> and consider that perhaps 80 to 90+ percent of browsers are IE, you
> need no help from me to decide why the extension .xhtml is seldom used
> except in a controlled network situation or if you serve both a true
> xhtml and a html page. If you just write your page in perfect xhtml 1.1
> and serve it as something.html, it is just served as html, which you
> can easily see by viewing it on IE6 where it will display just fine -
> if it had been true xhtml, it would not display at all.
>
Wow, that's great to know. I'll check my server, but it sounds unwise to
use the .xhtml extension right now. I didn't realize IE was so bad! :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|