XHTML support?

[kaeli]

Hey all,

Does anyone know if all the newer browsers support XHTML? My main target is
IE6/NN6+(firefox/mozilla/etc), but I'd like to know if Safari, Opera,
Konqueror, and other browsers also support it.
Anyone know of any major compatibility problems with XHTML?
How do older browsers, such as Netscape 4, react to the doctype?

TIA

--
--
~kaeli~
Murphy's Law #2000: If enough data is collected, anything
may be proven by statistical methods.

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Neal]

Re: XHTML support?

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 07:48:00 -0500, kaeli <tiny_one@NOSPA M.comcast.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Hey all,
>
> Does anyone know if all the newer browsers support XHTML? My main target
> is
> IE6/NN6+(firefox/mozilla/etc), but I'd like to know if Safari, Opera,
> Konqueror, and other browsers also support it.
> Anyone know of any major compatibility problems with XHTML?
> How do older browsers, such as Netscape 4, react to the doctype?
>
> TIA
>[/color]

XHTML code is essentially HTML, and as such it's relatively portable to
different browsers. The real problem comes when you serve the document. If
you do not serve your XHTML as text/html, IE cannot handle it. However, in
this case browsers which could have parsed the XML will not. So it's a
choice: serve as text/html and lose the primary benefit of doing XHTML,
serve as application/xml+xhtml and lose the most prevalent UA, or work out
a complex content-negotiation craziness that allows you to serve the
proper document to the user despite what might be cached for them
someplace.

In short - as long as IE or any similar UA exists which holds market share
and cannot handle XHTML properly, HTML 4.01 is the best available way to
code the document.

[David Dorward]

Re: XHTML support?

kaeli wrote:
[color=blue]
> Does anyone know if all the newer browsers support XHTML? My main target
> is IE6/NN6+(firefox/mozilla/etc), but I'd like to know if Safari, Opera,
> Konqueror, and other browsers also support it.[/color]

Real XHTML?
* Unsupported by IE, lynx and links.
* Supported by Gecko (Mozilla, Firefox, NN 6+ etc)
* Opera - I think has XHTML support.
* Safari - I think it fakes XHTML by treating application/xhtml+xml as
text/html.

XHTML served as text/html?
* Most browsers can error correct
* Emacs W3 (correctly under SGML rules) interprets XHTML self-closing tags
as elements followed by a >
[color=blue]
> How do older browsers, such as Netscape 4, react to the doctype?[/color]

They don't. Guessing the intelligence of the page author based on the
doctype is a new thing.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me .uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Kris]

Re: XHTML support?

In article <cfteuq$6o8$1$8 30fa7b3@news.de mon.co.uk>,
David Dorward <dorward@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Real XHTML?
> * Safari - I think it fakes XHTML by treating application/xhtml+xml as
> text/html.[/color]

It throws up a fatal error when the XHTML is not well-formed, for all it
is worth.

--
Kris
<kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> (nl)

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: XHTML support?

David Dorward <dorward@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Real XHTML?[/color]
- -[color=blue]
> * Opera - I think has XHTML support.[/color]

In a sense. Some people might say it has too good support: it does not
recognize predefined entities like &auml; (this is permitted by XHTML
rules), and it refuses to display the page at all if there is a single
"well-formedness" error like missing end tag.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Rijk van Geijtenbeek]

Re: XHTML support?

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:59:51 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue]
> David Dorward <dorward@yahoo. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Real XHTML?[/color]
> - -[color=green]
>> * Opera - I think has XHTML support.[/color]
>
> In a sense. Some people might say it has too good support: it does not
> recognize predefined entities like &auml; (this is permitted by XHTML
> rules), and it refuses to display the page at all if there is a single
> "well-formedness" error like missing end tag.[/color]

The wellformedness issue is mandated by the XML specs; MSIE and Mozilla
also honor it. Opera renders as good as it can up until the error,
followed by an error message, while the latest releases of Mozilla will
only show an error message.

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen

[Spartanicus]

Re: XHTML support?

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Real XHTML?[/color]
>- -[color=green]
>> * Opera - I think has XHTML support.[/color]
>
>In a sense. Some people might say it has too good support: it does not
>recognize predefined entities like &auml;[/color]

Incorrect.
[color=blue]
>and it refuses to display the page at all if there is a single
>"well-formedness" error like missing end tag.[/color]

Also incorrect, that's the way Gecko based UAs work.

--
Spartanicus

[kaeli]

Re: XHTML support?

In article <opscvoaxfa6v66 56@news.individ ual.net>, neal413@yahoo.c om
enlightened us with...
[color=blue]
>
> In short - as long as IE or any similar UA exists which holds market share
> and cannot handle XHTML properly, HTML 4.01 is the best available way to
> code the document.[/color]

Wow, you know, for such a popular browser, it doesn't seem to support much of
the new stuff. I can't get it to do XML right, either.
I was just using XML for passing some info to and from my applications, so I
figured I'd check out XHTML again. The last I checked on it, like a year or
more ago, it wasn't supported. I was hoping that would have changed. Guess
not.

Thanks to everyone who replied.

--
--
~kaeli~
A man needs a mistress... just to break the monogamy.

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Keith Bowes]

Re: XHTML support?

David Dorward wrote:[color=blue]
> kaeli wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Does anyone know if all the newer browsers support XHTML? My main target
>>is IE6/NN6+(firefox/mozilla/etc), but I'd like to know if Safari, Opera,
>>Konqueror, and other browsers also support it.[/color]
>
>
> Real XHTML?
> * Unsupported by IE, lynx and links.
> ...
> * Safari - I think it fakes XHTML by treating application/xhtml+xml as
> text/html.
>[/color]

BTW, the latest development version of Lynx also treats
application/xhtml+xml as text/html, which seems to be adequate for text
browsers (which don't have to bother with xml-stylesheet PIs, and CDATA
sections within script and style elements).

[Neal]

Re: XHTML support?

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:51:21 -0500, kaeli <tiny_one@NOSPA M.comcast.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Wow, you know, for such a popular browser, (IE) doesn't seem to support
> much of
> the new stuff.[/color]

As the old Lily Tomlin line goes, "We don't have to care. We're the Phone
Company."

[kaeli]

Re: XHTML support?

In article <opscv741h26v66 56@news.individ ual.net>, neal413@yahoo.c om
enlightened us with...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:51:21 -0500, kaeli <tiny_one@NOSPA M.comcast.net>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Wow, you know, for such a popular browser, (IE) doesn't seem to support
> > much of
> > the new stuff.[/color]
>
> As the old Lily Tomlin line goes, "We don't have to care. We're the Phone
> Company."
>[/color]

*snort*

--
--
~kaeli~
Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets?

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: XHTML support?

Spartanicus <me@privacy.net > wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Real XHTML?[/color]
>>- -[color=darkred]
>>> * Opera - I think has XHTML support.[/color]
>>
>>In a sense. Some people might say it has too good support: it does not
>>recognize predefined entities like &auml;[/color]
>
> Incorrect.[/color]

What would you like to characterize as incorrect? My description, or the
behavior described? On which grounds would you call either of them as
incorrect? The behavior is inadequate, especially for a WWW browser, but
not incorrect by the specifications.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>and it refuses to display the page at all if there is a single
>>"well-formedness" error like missing end tag.[/color]
>
> Also incorrect, that's the way Gecko based UAs work.[/color]

Again, _what_ is incorrect, in your opinion?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Spartanicus]

Re: XHTML support?

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> Real XHTML?
>>>- -
>>>> * Opera - I think has XHTML support.
>>>
>>>In a sense. Some people might say it has too good support: it does not
>>>recognize predefined entities like &auml;[/color]
>>
>> Incorrect.[/color]
>
>What would you like to characterize as incorrect?[/color]

Your statement that Opera doesn't recognize entities like &auml; in
XHTML mode. Do try to keep up: http://www.opera.com/download (entity
support in XHTML mode was added in 7.50)
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>and it refuses to display the page at all if there is a single
>>>"well-formedness" error like missing end tag.[/color]
>>
>> Also incorrect, that's the way Gecko based UAs work.[/color]
>
>Again, _what_ is incorrect, in your opinion?[/color]

Your statement again. Opera does not "refuse to display the page at
all", it renders what it can and tacks on the mandatory parsing error at
the end, demo: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/xhtml11.xhtml

--
Spartanicus

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: XHTML support?

Spartanicus <me@privacy.net > wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>What would you like to characterize as incorrect?[/color]
>
> Your statement that Opera doesn't recognize entities like &auml; in
> XHTML mode. Do try to keep up: http://www.opera.com/download (entity
> support in XHTML mode was added in 7.50)[/color]

Thank you. Why didn't you say that in the first place?

The fact still is that there are versions of Opera around that support
XHTML and treat references to predefined entities as nonexistent (that
is, display &auml; as null and void, not even as &auml; literally).

But genuine XHTML isn't suitable for practical authoring for the WWW
anyway, of course. Some people think that it's possible to detect the
browser's capabilities and send XHTML or classic HTML depending on them.
It's hard to see what that would achieve even if it were reliably
possible, but how would one sniff, for example, whether a browser that
claims XHTML support in the HTTP headers will ignore entity references or
not?
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>and it refuses to display the page at all if there is a single
>>>>"well-formedness" error like missing end tag.
>>>
>>> Also incorrect, that's the way Gecko based UAs work.[/color]
>>
>>Again, _what_ is incorrect, in your opinion?[/color]
>
> Your statement again. Opera does not "refuse to display the page at
> all", it renders what it can and tacks on the mandatory parsing error
> at the end, demo: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/xhtml11.xhtml[/color]

Again, thank you. My statement was exaggerated. The effects depend on the
location and kind of syntax errors. If you wrote, e.g.,
<title Spartanicus' Web tips</title>
then Opera would report "XML-jäsennys epäonnistui: ei oikeinmuodostet tu
(Rivi: 6, Merkki: 18)" or something similar, depending on the browser's
language, followed by a copy of the XHTML source code. My point is that
this is really bad to usability. When server as classic HTML, a browser
renders the page normally despite the error - just without showing the
title anywhere since it did not get it.

This is more or less what XML and XHTML are _supposed_ to mean. How many
authors can really organize things so that their XHTML documents never
get edited in a manner that creates a tiny syntax error? (Even if could
guarantee that, you could still play with classic HTML for a couple of
years. After all, contrary to the tone of many statements about XHTML and
HTML, it _is_ possible to write valid code in classic HTML too. And even
use redundant tags.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Spartanicus]

Re: XHTML support?

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Do try to keep up: http://www.opera.com/download (entity
>> support in XHTML mode was added in 7.50)[/color]
>
>Thank you. Why didn't you say that in the first place?[/color]

Only after posting my first reply did I remember that previous versions
had a shortcoming there.
[color=blue]
>But genuine XHTML isn't suitable for practical authoring for the WWW
>anyway, of course.[/color]

Agreed for the time being.
[color=blue]
>Some people think that it's possible to detect the
>browser's capabilities and send XHTML or classic HTML depending on them.
>It's hard to see what that would achieve even if it were reliably
>possible, but how would one sniff, for example, whether a browser that
>claims XHTML support in the HTTP headers will ignore entity references or
>not?[/color]

No such guarantees for text/html either.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Opera does not "refuse to display the page at
>> all", it renders what it can and tacks on the mandatory parsing error
>> at the end, demo: http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/xhtml11.xhtml[/color]
>
>Again, thank you. My statement was exaggerated. The effects depend on the
>location and kind of syntax errors. If you wrote, e.g.,
><title Spartanicus' Web tips</title>
>then Opera would report "XML-jäsennys epäonnistui: ei oikeinmuodostet tu
>(Rivi: 6, Merkki: 18)" or something similar, depending on the browser's
>language, followed by a copy of the XHTML source code.[/color]

Use that if you want as an argument against XHTML, but it doesn't form
an argument against Opera's handling of it. A standard compliant XHTML
parser is required to stop parsing after it has encountered malformed
code.
[color=blue]
>My point is that
>this is really bad to usability. When server as classic HTML, a browser
>renders the page normally despite the error - just without showing the
>title anywhere since it did not get it.
>
>This is more or less what XML and XHTML are _supposed_ to mean. How many
>authors can really organize things so that their XHTML documents never
>get edited in a manner that creates a tiny syntax error?[/color]

XHTML only renderers could shed the error correcting mechanisms that
weigh down current tag soup slurpers. Currently alternative UAs struggle
to emulate IE's error recovery mechanism, something that has to be done
by process of trial and error, and it will never be perfect.

I can't see XHTML only renderers on the desktop for decades, but I can
imagine web content created for other platforms like cellphones, wrist
watches etc. taking off in the near future. These devices and their
renderers would almost require well formed code, incorporating a classic
tag soup slurper is difficult on these resource strapped devices.

Since it's impossible to prevent malformed XHTML code being created, a
step in the right direction is if parsers clearly show malformedness
errors, assuming that most authors check their work in a UA before
publishing. And if they don't, every user that accesses the document
will be made aware of the error(s), making it far more likely that the
author will be informed.

That could result in a significant reduction of published malformed
code.
[color=blue]
>After all, contrary to the tone of many statements about XHTML and
>HTML, it _is_ possible to write valid code in classic HTML too. And even
>use redundant tags.)[/color]

Best not mention validity and well formedness in such close proximity of
each other so as not to give the impression to lurkers that the 2 are
the same.

--
Spartanicus