 |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
Neo Geshel
Guest
Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:06 pm |
 Post subject: Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors? |
 |
 |
|
|
NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.
Greetings!
I am in the process of creating a template for a site. The site will be
*true* XHTML 1.1. That is, it will validate as XHTML 1.1 on all pages,
it will make use of the UTF-8 character set, and it will (whenever
possible) be sent out with a mime-type of application/xhtml+xml. To
force standards-compliant mode in Internet Explorer, I am also making
use of the JavaScript IE7 compliance patch (http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/).
The problem that I am experiencing is with Internet Explorer. As anyone
with any serious Borg-like tendencies (i.e., the “pursuit of
perfection”) will tell you, Internet Explorer is incapable of handling
application/xhtml+xml; treating it instead as a downloadable file. There
is a workaround, however. XHTML pages *can* be treated as
application/xml in a pinch (it is not *dis*allowed, just discouraged;
unlike text/html which is disallowed for XHTML), and IE *does* recognize
this format. However, to prevent IE from either downloading it or
displaying the XML tree, one has to apply a very small XSLT transformation.
The problem that I have run across is that IE (with the version in
question depending on the machine) will throw an XML parsing error due
to the standard XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE:
<output>
The XML page cannot be displayed
Cannot view XML input using XSL style sheet. Please correct the error
and then click the Refresh button, or try again later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter entity must be defined before it is used. Error processing
resource 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd...
%xhtml-prefw-redecl.mod;
-^
</output>
Now, on *my* machine, I have reworked the resulting output so that IE 6
and lower does not throw this error, despite being fed a normal DOCTYPE.
However, IE7 *does* have to be fed a *non-standard* DOCTYPE to avoid
throwing this error.
Since IE 6 and lower is being fed a normal XHTML 1.1 DOCTYPE, I would
like to know if this error appears on any other person’s machine, when
they are using a version of IE less than 7. If you get this error with
your version of IE, I would like to know the following:
• Your version of IE
• Your OS (32-bit/64-bit), including service packs
• Your version of MSXMLS installed
• And the error message, if it differs significantly from above
Any and all comments about the *design* would also be appreciated.
The template can be found at http://www.bannerswarm.net/template.php
Please also note that the template is still under construction. While
the DOCTYPE in question will not change, the content and layout may
change suddenly and without warning.
TIA
...Geshel
--
*********************************************************************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
********************************************************************* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Sherm Pendley
Guest
Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:06 pm |
| Post subject: Re: Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors? |
|
|
|
|
Neo Geshel <gotcha@geshel.org> writes:
| Quote: | NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.
|
You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
that way.
Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?
My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
Problem solved.
Or, if you insist on using XHTML in spite of its many well-known problems,
don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
you how to avoid those problems in the first place.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Neo Geshel
Guest
Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:06 pm |
| Post subject: Re: Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors? |
|
|
|
|
Sherm Pendley wrote:
| Quote: | Neo Geshel <gotcha@geshel.org> writes:
NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
ARTICLES PROPERLY PRIOR TO ANSWERING. I AM LOOKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC
INFORMATION, THEREFORE PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND THOROUGHLY BEFORE
RESPONDING; OR ASK QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY. I *WILL* APPRECIATE ANY
CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY.
You begin by cross-posting, shouting, and then telling us that we should
read an article "properly", even though you can't be bothered to post it
that way.
|
Would you rather I multi-post? Having been using the Internet for 16+
years, it is my understanding that cross-posting is *far* more
preferable than multi-posting.
You know, in the future I could always multi-post articles, if that
would make you happy. That way, people reading in one NG would be unable
to see answers to the same post in another NG.
| Quote: | Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?
|
It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,
especially with more complicated or more detailed posts. That’s why I
tried to weed out those who would just parrot back that which I clearly
stated I wasn’t interested in, or had already discounted.
And yes, the more precise or more technical an article I post, the more
people that reply with an answer I had already clearly stated that I
discounted, or clearly stated I had no interest in. Hence, my attempt to
“focus” people.
| Quote: | My advice is, since using XHTML is causing problems, use HTML instead.
Problem solved.
|
I have far more problems with HTML and “quirks mode” rendering
differences between browsers with HTML that I have ever had with XHTML.
| Quote: | Or, if you insist on using XHTML in spite of its many well-known problems,
|
Its *many* well-know problems? I know of only two problems - Internet
Explorer’s inability to handle application/xhtml+xml, and (by proxy)
IE’s “quirks mode” problems with the XML Prologue (which can be fixed by
getting it to conduct an XSLT transformation on a document served up as
application/xml).
Otherwise, XHTML 1.1 works just fine for me.
| Quote: | don't come back here asking for solutions to the problems you've insisted
on creating for yourself, and insulting the very people who tried to tell
you how to avoid those problems in the first place.
|
Confusing cause and effect, are we? Having trouble with temporal
effects? You are the first person to reply to this post, dearie. No-one
has *tried* to help me with *this* post and *this* issue yet. Try to
avoid time-travel in the future, k? Pardon the pun.
Cheers.
...Geshel
--
*********************************************************************
My return e-mail address is an automatically monitored spam honeypot.
Do not send e-mail there unless you wish to be reported as a spammer.
Please send all e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org, with
a subject-line of “NEWSGROUP REPLY FOR NEO GESHEL” (all uppercase).
********************************************************************* |
|
| Back to top |
|
  |
Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
 |  | |
