xhtml teething troubles

[Ted]

This page

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/test/utf-8_test_file_hacked_for_ie_with_local_dtd.xml

doesn't work properly in Firefox or IE6. The faults are different. In
Firefox the TestText entity is not recognised. In IE6, the <br /> tag
doesn't cause a line break. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?

[Jack]

Re: xhtml teething troubles

Ted wrote:[color=blue]
> This page
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mcc..._local_dtd.xml
> doesn't work properly in Firefox or IE6. The faults are different.
> In Firefox the TestText entity is not recognised. In IE6, the <br />
> tag doesn't cause a line break. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing
> wrong?
>[/color]
As you say, the DTD is local; I can't inspect it. You may or may not
have defined those entities. Consider defining them in an inline DTD
subset; you can't count on the browser fetching your DTD.

--
Jack.

[Chaddy2222]

Re: xhtml teething troubles


Ted wrote:[color=blue]
> This page
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mcc..._local_dtd.xml
> doesn't work properly in Firefox or IE6. The faults are different. In
> Firefox the TestText entity is not recognised. In IE6, the <br /> tag
> doesn't cause a line break. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong?[/color]
For a start, the XHTML support inIE6 is not very good. You also must
validate your XHTML, that should go a long way in getting the browsers
to display your code correctly.
Also, use a proper XHTML Strict Doc Type as that will be better
recognized by browsers.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

[VK]

Re: xhtml teething troubles


Ted wrote:[color=blue]
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mcc..._local_dtd.xml
> doesn't work properly in Firefox or IE6. The faults are different. In
> Firefox the TestText entity is not recognised.[/color]

Right - because Firefox currently is not able to fetch external DTD's
of any kind. See <https://bugzilla.mozill a.org/show_bug.cgi?id =35984>
and outsprings. A very nasty bug forcing to declare all extra entities
in internal DTD like
<!DOCTYPE template [
<!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
... etc
]>

Note: there is no "local DTD" as a term. There is external DTD (your
case) and internal DTD (my sample).


In IE6, the <br /> tag[color=blue]
> doesn't cause a line break.[/color]

Because an XML document in default XML namespace has no special
treatment for <br /> - it's just a well-formed element w/o closing tag.
It meay mean something important to HTML parser (like "make line break
here"), but mute to XML.

Use your template in XSL template and link it to XML data file so the
resulting page would be HTML. Briefly: stop /hacking/ things and start
/using/ them ;-)

<comp.text.xm l> is another good source of help on the matter.

[VK]

Re: xhtml teething troubles


VK wrote:[color=blue]
> Use your template in XSL template and link it to XML data file so the
> resulting page would be HTML. Briefly: stop /hacking/ things and start
> /using/ them ;-)[/color]

Also it is not clear why did you call the post " xhtml teething
troubles" as the linked document has no relation neither to XHTML nor
to HTML. It's a well-formed (accounting extra entities in DTD) XML
document served as XML document.

IE handles is absolutely correctly, FF cannot retrieve DTD because of
bug I mentioned so it breaks its "well-formedness".
In both cases it is really out of the scope of (X)HTML authoring,
<comp.text.xm l> is more relevant.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: xhtml teething troubles


Ted wrote:[color=blue]
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mcc..._local_dtd.xml
> doesn't work properly in Firefox or IE6.[/color]

Pragmatically, I think you're stuffed. It appears to be implemented
correctly as a piece of XML work, but this just isn't how the web
works, barely how XML is used (in practice) and is _certainly_ not a
technique that's usable on the web for the forseeable future.

There's a raft of valid techniques out there that just aren't commonly
used in practice, so support for them varies from poor to none.

[Michael Winter]

Re: xhtml teething troubles

On 31/05/2006 07:48, VK wrote:
[color=blue]
> [...] Firefox currently is not able to fetch external DTD's
> of any kind.[/color]

That statement, as-is, is entirely false. Firefox can process external
subsets, but only does so in certain circumstances and they do not
include DTDs found on the Web.
[color=blue]
> [...] A very nasty bug[/color]

How many times do I have to repeat this: it is /not/ a bug! It may not
be desirable, but it's entirely correct behaviour. As I've also stated
before, Firefox is not the only browser featuring an XML processor that
doesn't process external subsets.
[color=blue]
> forcing to declare all extra entities in internal DTD [...][/color]

Or don't use entities; encode the document using UTF-8, for example, and
enter the characters directly.

[snip]
[color=blue]
> Note: there is no "local DTD" as a term.[/color]

The OP didn't use it as such. From his perspective the DTD is local as
it's on the same server. Of course, to the rest of us, it's just as remote.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[VK]

Re: xhtml teething troubles


Michael Winter wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > [...] Firefox currently is not able to fetch external DTD's
> > of any kind.[/color]
>
> That statement, as-is, is entirely false. Firefox can process external
> subsets, but only does so in certain circumstances and they do not
> include DTDs found on the Web.[/color]

Yeh, right... Firefox can process external subsets but it cannot
process external subsets. :-)

[color=blue][color=green]
> > [...] A very nasty bug[/color]
>
> How many times do I have to repeat this: it is /not/ a bug! I[/color]

You may repeat it as many times as you want: it doesn't change the
production mechanics.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/>
<q>The productions later in this specification for individual
nonterminals (elementdecl, AttlistDecl, and so on) describe the
declarations after all the parameter entities have been included.</q>

Plain and simple: either you include all declared entities and start
production, or you don't bother with the production at all. I already
explained the real issue with this bug: the impossibility to divide
standard-wise between bogus DTD in (X)HTML and real DTD

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Re: xhtml teething troubles

"VK" <schools_ring@y ahoo.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> Note: there is no "local DTD" as a term. There is external DTD (your
> case) and internal DTD (my sample).[/color]

There ain't no 'external DTD' and 'internal DTD' as terms as well,
except perhaps in your parallel universe. There is an external and an
internal subset, and there is a DTD, which is the sum of both.


--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011

[VK]

Re: xhtml teething troubles


Eric B. Bednarz wrote:[color=blue]
> "VK" <schools_ring@y ahoo.com> writes:
>[color=green]
> > Note: there is no "local DTD" as a term. There is external DTD (your
> > case) and internal DTD (my sample).[/color]
>
> There ain't no 'external DTD' and 'internal DTD' as terms as well,
> except perhaps in your parallel universe. There is an external and an
> internal subset, and there is a DTD, which is the sum of both.[/color]

I'm affraid that the you are who's speaking from a parallel universe
;-) There are "external DTD subsets" and "internal DTD subsets"
commonly referred as "external DTD" and "internal DTD" ("commonly"
means by authoring software producers and in manuals, not by VK).
Before inventing more stuff, check the Web.

[Michael Winter]

Re: xhtml teething troubles

On 31/05/2006 12:00, VK wrote:
[color=blue]
> Michael Winter wrote:[/color]

[snip]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Firefox can process external subsets, but only does so in certain
>> circumstances and they do not include DTDs found on the Web.[/color]
>
> Yeh, right... Firefox can process external subsets but it cannot
> process external subsets. :-)[/color]

I don't expect you to have taken the time to understood what was
written, but it would have been nice if you had.

[snip]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> How many times do I have to repeat this: it is /not/ a bug![/color]
>
> You may repeat it as many times as you want:[/color]

Yes, I know. You're a stubborn fool that refuses to learn anything from
anyone.

As I've stated before, I don't reply to your posts any more to attempt
to further your knowledge. It's wasted effort. However, I have no
intention of letting you mislead others who ask this group for help or
informed opinion.
[color=blue]
> it doesn't change the production mechanics.[/color]

None of the grammar productions, nor the prose that accompanies them,
have any relevance here. Section 5.1 Validating and Non-Validating
Processors[1] states exactly what's expected from conforming processors.
Specifically,

Non-validating processors are REQUIRED to check only the
document entity, including the entire internal DTD subset,
for well-formedness.

noting that Firefox (and others) use non-validating processors. Furthermore,

While they are not required to check the document for validity,
they are REQUIRED to process all the declarations they read in
the internal DTD subset and in any parameter entity that they
read ...

Note the conspicuous absence of any reference to an external entity.
[color=blue]
> <q>The productions later in this specification for individual
> nonterminals (elementdecl, AttlistDecl, and so on) describe the
> declarations after all the parameter entities have been included.</q>
>
> Plain and simple: either you include all declared entities and start
> production, or you don't bother with the production at all.[/color]

It would seem that you don't know the difference between an entity
reference and a parameter entity reference. The latter has nothing to do
with the problem described by the OP.

[snipped gibberish]

Mike


[1] 5.1 Validating and Non-Validating Processors, XML 1.0
Specification. <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#proc-types>

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[VK]

Re: xhtml teething troubles

Michael Winter wrote:[color=blue]
> However, I have no
> intention of letting you mislead others who ask this group for help or
> informed opinion.[/color]

That is exactly my intention too, unfortunately.

All differences between external DTD subsets and internal DTD subsets
are well spelled at <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/>, section 2.8

Section 2.9 also defines that in the OP case standalone in prolog
presumed "no" and /cannot/ be "yes": <q>entities (other than amp, lt,
gt, apos, quot), if references to those entities appear in the
document</q>

The idea that internal DTD is /a must to process/ while external DTD is
something /optional to process/ is plain stupid. It took a long brain
waching from one organisation to start to believe it.

A standard-compliant XML processor is not a capricious lady as one is
trying to present: "if I'm moody, I'll retrieve external subsets before
parsing; otherwize I'll ignore them and just break parsing on the first
non-declared entity".

The real reason of external DTD complications for someone is because of
bogus DTD's for (X)HTML. It is like a primitive tribe would find a TV
set and use it as a local god for years - with dancing around and
putting flowers on it. What would be a hard discover for them that it
is actually something practically useful and the actual purpose of this
thing is not to stay in the middle of the village and be covered with
flowers.

[Ted]

Re: xhtml teething troubles

"VK" <schools_ring@y ahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149066520 .109850.20470@f 6g2000cwb.googl egroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> Also it is not clear why did you call the post " xhtml teething
> troubles" as the linked document has no relation neither to XHTML nor
> to HTML. It's a well-formed (accounting extra entities in DTD) XML
> document served as XML document.
>[/color]

Sorry if you think I'm posting to the wrong group. I did a |Google search to
find newsgroups which dealt with xhtml, and this seemed to be the best
group. xhtml is supposed to be served as xml
[color=blue]
> In both cases it is really out of the scope of (X)HTML authoring,
> <comp.text.xm l> is more relevant.[/color]

Thaks for the tip.

[VK]

Re: xhtml teething troubles


Ted wrote:[color=blue]
> did a Google search to find newsgroups which dealt with xhtml[/color]

And you came to the right one. The problem is that your code is not
XHTML and has nothing to do with it - though I believe you that you
fairly thought otherwise.
[color=blue]
> xhtml is supposed to be served as xml[/color]

Noop. Never. XHTML is supposed to be served as application/xhtml+xml
XML/XSL is supposed to be served as text/xml.

XHTML code must be /well-formed in accordance with XML rules/, but it
is /not/ served as XML.

[Ted]

Re: xhtml teething troubles

"VK" <schools_ring@y ahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149107371 .102242.172790@ c74g2000cwc.goo glegroups.com.. .[color=blue]
>
> Ted wrote:
> xhtml is supposed to be served as xml
>
> Noop. Never. XHTML is supposed to be served as application/xhtml+xml
> XML/XSL is supposed to be served as text/xml.
>
> XHTML code must be /well-formed in accordance with XML rules/, but it
> is /not/ served as XML.
>[/color]

According to : http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#texthtml
"XHTML is an XML format; this means that strictly speaking it should be sent
with an XML-related media type (application/xhtml+xml, application/xml, or
text/xml). "

As long as I stick with the free webspace provided by NTL, any file with the
extension .xml will be served as application/xml