|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 03/24/06 02:04
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, David Dorward wrote:
[...]
> Over HTTP there are no file extensions, only URLs which might happen
> to have the characters ".html" in them as they might map directly
> onto a filesystem.
A pity that MSIE plays by totally different rules. In fact by several
different sets of rules, depending on which version of MSIE is
involved. I knew that there were some significant changes with XP
SP2, but I wasn't fully aware of their implications. A discussion on
dciwam called my attention to some new violations of RFC2616
introduced by the XP SP2 changes, to add to the ones which were known
about before.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/de.comm.infosystems.www.authoring.misc/browse_thread/thread/6d73376bfa592bf5
As I just learned there, and then proved for myself --
On such a browser-like object, if you send it application/xhtml+xml
with a .xhtml filename extension, it offers to download it; but if you
send it with a .html extension (still with the XHTML content-type), it
does its best to render it as HTML. Sigh.
On my older Win2K system with IE6, on the other hand, it invites me to
choose to either download the item or open it with Mozilla. Which by
sheer chance is what it ought to do (for this specific content-type)
according to RFC2616 and my own preferences settings. What a pity
that they evidently have no intention of spreading that correct
behaviour more widely (quite the contrary, judging from the observed
XP-SP2 changes).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|