Posted by Simon on 11/07/06 11:44

>
>> The obvious 2 problems is that the pages does not have doctype or
>> Charest.
>
> Absence of DOCTYPE is no reason for a browser to fail to display,
> although it'll mean the page is rendered in quirks mode by browsers
> which do that sort of thing.
>
> Well, a glance at the source indicates that it's been extruded by some
> MS Office tool, so I wouldn't expect much.

I guess so.

>
>> I have tried it with FF and IE and they both look ok without DOCTYPE
>> and Charest.
>
> You seem to be consistent in mis-typing that MIME attribute name :-}

Sorry, I didn't check my spell checker.

>
>> So what default are been used?
>
> Most of the content appears to have been included as &#number;
> references instead of actual coded characters; so specifying any
> character encoding (charset=) which includes us-ascii would be
> sufficient to get that rendered correctly.
>
>> Because whatever I add it does not display properly.
>
> You're not giving very much of a clue as to what kind of "improperly"
> you/they are seeing.

I am not certain what else to say really, if I add any doctype the width of
the document changes, (with horizontal scrollbar).
If I add any charset the same happens.
If I have neither charset or Doctype the display is as you see it.

>
> There aren't many actual coded characters in the document, which makes
> it hard to do diagnostics on that aspect. I can't find an encoding
> which is consistent with them all.
>
> My guess is that it's not all in the same encoding, and, as such, is
> hopelessly broken. My hunch is that it's in a mixture of Windows-1256
> and utf-8, but as I can't actually read Farsi, I could be wrong.

So, at best i could use "Windows-1256" and that might work. I would have to
ask the user to try as it is their template.

>
>> Also the user claims that we don't support "persian languages".
>
> Pardon? Who's "we", and why should that be a limitation on alt.html?

We, http://www.journalhome.com as the host, nothing to do with alt.html. I
am only asking here for help here.
I am just suprised that it displays the code on some machine, (by the looks
of it yours and mine), and it does not work on other machines.
I am guessing that the user browser understands the &#; but the machine does
not have the fonts to actually display them.

>
> As for DOCTYPE, there isn't one that fits the kind of garbage that
> gets extruded by MS. Whichever of the W3C DOCTYPEs you use, you're
> going to get handfuls of validation errors against it. If their
> software doesn't supply one, I'd recommend leaving it that way - well,
> what I would *really* recommend is changing to some software that's
> capable of generating valid HTML, but presumably that isn't an option
> for you.

A bit strange that both browsers seem to display ok without a DOCTYPE, what
do they use?

Thanks

Simon
--
http://urlkick.com/
Free URL redirection service. Turns a long URL into a much shorter one.

[Back to original message]