|
|
Posted by Jim Higson on 03/24/06 11:20
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
> 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.
Just out of interest, what does it do if you send application/xhtml+xml with
an extention like ".php"?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|