Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

[-Lost]

In Firefox and Safari for example, if I serve my XHTML documents as
application/xml or xhtml+xml they only display the top inch or so of the
document.

In Opera it says "object has been blocked."

In Internet Explorer of course you get total rubbish. Anything from
"page cannot be loaded" to "403 no permission."

The thing is, I figured the first two at least could handle it, maybe
even Opera. I knew how IE would handle it.

Granted, I know the caveats of using XHTML on the web, but irregardless
I would like to know why it behaves this way.

What makes my XHTML pages render as one to two inch strips across the
top of the browser?

If anyone needs an example page to inspect, let me know.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

[Andreas Prilop]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, -Lost wrote:

If anyone needs an example page to inspect, let me know.

Yes.

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=author:Alan.J.Flavell

[-Lost]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, -Lost wrote:
>

>If anyone needs an example page to inspect, let me know.

>
Yes.

http://mndhmm.com/

Currently being served as: application/xhtml+xml

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

On 18 Jun, 15:46, -Lost <maventheextraw o...@techie.com wrote:

What makes my XHTML pages render as one to two inch strips across the
top of the browser?

The fact that it's a very short page (you set the div height
explicitly to 95px). Then there's a little post-it note stuck down the
bottom, but you positioned that with absolute, so it's no longer part
of the page flow.

This is a CSS issue, caused by perverse CSS that you've written
yourself. It doesn't need XHTML to explain it.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

-Lost wrote:

Andreas Prilop wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, -Lost wrote:
>>

>>If anyone needs an example page to inspect, let me know.

>>
>Yes.

>

http://mndhmm.com/

>
Currently being served as: application/xhtml+xml
>

That's better, easier where one can see the page.

Yeah, the background-image is applied to the body, the body is only as
big as it needs to be to contain the child elements with *normal* flow,
i.e., your absolute positioned link is *excluded*. You either have to
style the body element to be 100% width and height of browser window or
set its overflow property.

but XHTML and severing application/xhtml+xml borks for approximately 70%
of your audience so unless your actually *need* XHTML thare is no good
argument to not use HTML 4.01 Strict.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

Scripsit Andreas Prilop:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, -Lost wrote:
>

>If anyone needs an example page to inspect, let me know.

>
Yes.

Do you? I think there were sufficient bogosity indicators that suggest that
the issue be ignored. I mean things like not telling the URL _without being
asked_, using a fake name and an apparently forged address, and not giving a
hint of _why_ the OP would use XHTML as delivery format on the Web.

So "-Lost" is either lost beyond our help, or just trolling. It doesn't
matter which.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[-Lost]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Scripsit Andreas Prilop:
>

>On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, -Lost wrote:
>>

>>If anyone needs an example page to inspect, let me know.

>>
>Yes.

>
Do you? I think there were sufficient bogosity indicators that suggest
that the issue be ignored. I mean things like not telling the URL
_without being asked_, using a fake name and an apparently forged
address, and not giving a hint of _why_ the OP would use XHTML as
delivery format on the Web.
>
So "-Lost" is either lost beyond our help, or just trolling. It doesn't
matter which.

Or you are just an overly-inflated ego-maniacal windbag. Damn, you
never change.

I thought the issue was something related *strictly* to serving it with
the correct MIME type. I have never used this before or bothered with
serving it correctly so was *totally* unaware.

That makes me uninformed. You are just an idiot.

And who gives a shit if I use a moniker instead of my real name, "Yucca?"

And forged address? The signature states specifically what to do with
my e-mail to make it valid.

I don't mean to rant or ramble on, but your self-proclaimed genius and
superiority to others makes me sick. Jackass.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

[-Lost]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

-Lost wrote:

>Andreas Prilop wrote:

>>On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, -Lost wrote:
>>>
>>>If anyone needs an example page to inspect, let me know.
>>>
>>Yes.

>>
>http://mndhmm.com/
>>
>Currently being served as: application/xhtml+xml
>>

>
That's better, easier where one can see the page.

Like I told Jukka, I thought it had something to do more with the MIME
type I was using, not something specific to markup or CSS. That is why
I didn't include it at first.

My mistake.

Yeah, the background-image is applied to the body, the body is only

as big as it needs to be to contain the child elements with *normal*
flow, i.e., your absolute positioned link is *excluded*. You either have
to style the body element to be 100% width and height of browser window
or set its overflow property.

Thank you, now I understand the problem.

but XHTML and severing application/xhtml+xml borks for approximately

70% of your audience so unless your actually *need* XHTML thare is no
good argument to not use HTML 4.01 Strict.

I know. Again, I just sought to understand something that um... I
didn't understand.

Thanks for the information.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

[-Lost]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

Andy Dingley wrote:

On 18 Jun, 15:46, -Lost <maventheextraw o...@techie.com wrote:
>

>What makes my XHTML pages render as one to two inch strips across the
>top of the browser?

>
The fact that it's a very short page (you set the div height
explicitly to 95px). Then there's a little post-it note stuck down the
bottom, but you positioned that with absolute, so it's no longer part
of the page flow.
>
This is a CSS issue, caused by perverse CSS that you've written
yourself. It doesn't need XHTML to explain it.

Gotcha. This is obviously something to do with CSS that I didn't
understand.

Thanks for the information.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

-Lost wrote:

Like I told Jukka, I thought it had something to do more with the MIME
type I was using, not something specific to markup or CSS. That is why
I didn't include it at first.

Just a tip -Lost, when asking a question when your are "lost" there is a
good change you will not know where the problem lies, so a URL means
that you do not have to guess on what you need to include.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[-Lost]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

-Lost wrote:
>

>Like I told Jukka, I thought it had something to do more with the MIME
>type I was using, not something specific to markup or CSS. That is
>why I didn't include it at first.

>
Just a tip -Lost, when asking a question when your are "lost" there is a
good change you will not know where the problem lies, so a URL means
that you do not have to guess on what you need to include.

Duly noted. Thanks Mr. Little.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:

Just a tip -Lost, when asking a question when your are "lost" there
is a good change you will not know where the problem lies, so a URL
means that you do not have to guess on what you need to include.

Indeed, but "-Lost" apparently wants to remain lost, and confirms this by
continued use of a fake identity, which he uses to insult people, among
other things. I think we must respect his wish to remain lost; ignorance is
curable, but not against the patient's will.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[-Lost]

Re: Serving XHTML as XHTML does *really* weird things.

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:
>

>Just a tip -Lost, when asking a question when your are "lost" there
>is a good change you will not know where the problem lies, so a URL
>means that you do not have to guess on what you need to include.

>
Indeed, but "-Lost" apparently wants to remain lost, and confirms this
by continued use of a fake identity, which he uses to insult people,
among other things. I think we must respect his wish to remain lost;
ignorance is curable, but not against the patient's will.

What exactly would make you feel better? If I stopped using a nickname?

Do you think I am somehow scared of you? I adopted a nickname solely
for the purpose of being able to call you on what you are? (An idiot
who likes to belittle others.)

And what exactly makes you think I "want to stay lost?"

And you want to talk about hiding yourself behind an identity, you sure
seem to want to talk down to people safely hidden behind your keyboard.
I doubt you'd say most of what you had to say to anyone face to face
for fear your fool mouth would get shut.

Instead of being helpful, you wrongfully assumed I was out "trolling."
Why? I have no clue why except you think you are a Usenet Nazi. I made
some unknown (except to Mr. Korpela himself) mistake when posting, or
perhaps because I did not think of everything like you think you would
have, and I am an "ignorant troll."

I think this shows without a doubt what kind of person you are. And
regardless of your master's degree, is also telltale of your intelligence.

--
-Lost
Remove the extra words to reply by e-mail. Don't e-mail me. I am
kidding. No I am not.