But it's worth it. It took a while, I adjusted, and will never give an (X)HTML document that doesn't validate* [w3.org] to the browsing public again.
Which will be easier too (syntax-wise), if you serve your XHTML documents as application/xhtml+xml. Mozilla understands this and runs the source through it's XML parser, and if syntax errors are encountered you'll only get an error message on screen along with the line containing the syntax error. A little added bonus when sending as application/xhtml+xml.:-)
As for IE, I believe in most instances it'll ask if you want to download the page as it doesn't support application/xhtml+xml.
As it is, there is a good compromise already in Mozilla. Web pages that don't appear to be standards conforming are rendered in "sloppy" mode, which generally works for IE targeted stuff.
Actually both IE and Mozilla/Gecko (don't know about Opera) have this quirks rendering mode.
They use DOCTYPE - the first line of the source - sniffing to determine which (X)HTML version the web page is written for. If the page indicates the use of a strict version of (X)HTML, these browsers will render the page in a strict standards compliant mode. Everything will be rendered according to the strict standards as proposed by The WWW Consortium. Your pages will look the same both in IE and Mozilla, however don't be fooled by IE's relaxed attitude towards block/inline content - do read up on this in the specs. If you preview your pages in Mozilla first you will save a lot of time, because it's not as forgiving when you make mistakes.
In quirks mode you can use all the dirty tricks from the old days. Everything will look horrible accros different browsers, and the source will be next to unmaintainable!
The quirks/strict standards modes are triggered by these doctypes respectively:
Quiks mode:
HTML 3.2
HTML 4.01 Transitional
HTML 4.01 Frameset
XHTML 1.0 Transitional
XHTML 1.0 Frameset
Strict standards mode:
HTML 4.01 Strict
XHTML 1.0 Strict
XHTML 1.1
I'd advise everyone to write (X)HTML to the strict versions and make the www a better place to be for all of us.
But many developers (willingly or ignorantly) prefer MS's approach and most users (willingly or ignorantly) use Internet Explorer.It is very expensive for companies to implement Mozzila compatible versions of their webpages for the minority of internet users who don't use IE.
I'm tired of hearing this argument! If you just adhere to the standards when creating web pages you'll be just fine. In fact, you'd be better off as your pages will be much more easy to maintain, and you'll benefit greatly from all the available features that come with CSS. Try weighing the cost of maintaining a tag soup IE optimized (ugh!) page against a page using strict standards and the latter will win anytime!
IE is way behind Mozilla and Opera, it doesn't even support application/xhtml+xml, which is (or should be) used for XHTML. And don't get me started on the XML-declaration, IE chokes on this and throws itself into quirks mode when rendering your content.
Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16...
I forgot to mention that I like to write with my native language's accented characters (when writing in Danish that is) rather than having to escape them using UTF.
I've just realized though that IE has a severe deficiency which is somewhat of a showstopper for the adoption of XHTML - it ignores the XML declaration in XHTML documents, like this:
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='iso-8859-1'?>
IE expects to encouter the DOCTYPE first, which doesn't make sense - and would be non-valid XHTML markup. When you feed IE with this as text/html, it's throws it in to quirks mode!
Sure, the XML declaration is not strictly required, however if you read the W3C XHTML spec it says:
An XML declaration is not required in all XML documents; however XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in all their documents. Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16 and no encoding was determined by a higher-level protocol. Here is an example of an XHTML document. In this example, the XML declaration is included.
I know XHTML shouldn't be sent as text/html, but it's convenient in a transition and IE wouldn'y understand application/xhtml+xml anyway.
Unfortunately, certain buggy web browsers - such as many versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer - have severly broken CSS implementations that make this more difficult than it should be.
The "simple" CSS Complex Spiral Demo does a good job of demonstrating some of IE's broken CSS. I also like the distorded edition too - very creative usage of CSS!
The second failure was the unidentified privilege escalation. This doesn't appear to fit any of the laws (they appear to be written assuming privilege escallation is trivial, I guess that says something about Windows).
[emphasis mine]
Or next to irrelevant! All the exploited Windows services I know of run with root privileges on a default setup.
And in the case of exploiting security holes in programs (like IE and Outlook) your typical user - in session - is not likely a non-root user. Definately not on the Win95/98/Me versions of Windows, and most likely not on Win2K either.
Bad Boss? Impossible conditions? Fear and loathing from 9 to 5? This is a research site for a book about quitting your job. The task? Write your dream letter of resignation. Don't repeat that polite missive that begins with: "After long and careful consideration, I have decided to resign my current position." Instead, be as honest as your wildest dreams invite you to be. Imagine actually telling your boss exactly where things went wrong...
You're not seriously suggesting that in the face of fighting Linux, SCO will eventually turn on MS and throw them into a reactor shaft, are you? If so, then wouldn't that make slashdot readers the Ewoks when we start celebrating?
You're not seriously suggesting that SCO will indeed turn out to be Linus' father? If so, wouldn't that make RMS Linus' sister?
No... that's not true! That's impossible!
Now _I_ feel unclean. My apologies to Mr. Torvalds and Mr. Stallman.
My biggest gripe however is: why the fuck can't you just use loopback rpc and disable network access??
My sentiments exactly!
The weird part is though, why in the world would you be required to depend on RPC (Remote procedure call) capabilities to manage local configuration of your box? Sure sure, no one could possibly ever think of interfering with our own client/server conversation done over a real (as in physically connected and exposed) interface?
Not so long ago I read that Seth was also about to do a direct-to-DVD Family Guy movie. Perhaps FOX changed their minds and wanted whole season instead?
"It's all come down to the budget right now. We're hashing it out [...] It would be a direct-to-DVD project."
But wait, there's more. This might still be on the rumor stage, but something about FOX having Seth create another series. Do a Google search! In short:
This series focuses on a family consisting of Stan, a right-leaning C.I.A. agent; his wife; their two kids, including a liberal daughter; a housebound alien named Roger; and a French-speaking goldfish. Like "Family Guy," MacFarlane plans to provide several of the character voices.
More importantly, what the hell is "code page 1252"? Mostly likely this is Microsoft code page 1252, which is NOT the Latin-1 charset I know, as in ISO-8859-1?
Well, actually there is a loophole, but it's very inconvenient. The shops where I used to buy my DVD's have converted to web shops - that is, they've established US-based companies with DVD stock operating out of Germany.
You do pay DKK and the DVD's are delivered within a couple of days, and it's also a bit cheaper than before. This sounds sweet at first glance, but the fact remains: you can't browse region 1 titles at a local store anymore, and if a DVD is defunct you have to mail it back to Germany and wait for a new one to arrive.
Still, the EUCD sucks for obstructing free trade in this way. Basically, you may only resell DVD's originating from within the EU.
Oh, I know! However, I'm not blaming copyright legislation for the region coding itself. I am blaming the contend providers for that (e.g. the studios). You see the fact that EU happens to be region 2 is just a coincidence for the EUCD, but it's a damn good convenience for the studios.
However, bear this in mind. I was told by my once local region 1 shop that even before the EUCD, the studios (or their representatives in Denmark) were already quite trigger happy and tried to have the region 1 DVD reselling stopped - however without success with respects to local lobbying. The EUCD changed that of course, which was lobbying on a higher level and you can count that as a success on their part.
They are now working towards having the region modding of DVD players made illegal (of course they've been at this even before the EUCD). This is still legal here, that is nobody interprets the EUCD as prohibiting this. BTW, I buy Pioneer players, and even Pioneer accept the fact that their players are being region modded as the players are not warranty voided after the operation. And no, it's not my local shop providing the warranty, it is actually still Pioneer themselves - at least that's what my local shop told me. Great service on Pioneer's behalf if you ask me.
Slashdot Mirror
Which will be easier too (syntax-wise), if you serve your XHTML documents as application/xhtml+xml. Mozilla understands this and runs the source through it's XML parser, and if syntax errors are encountered you'll only get an error message on screen along with the line containing the syntax error. A little added bonus when sending as application/xhtml+xml. :-)
As for IE, I believe in most instances it'll ask if you want to download the page as it doesn't support application/xhtml+xml.
zActually both IE and Mozilla/Gecko (don't know about Opera) have this quirks rendering mode.
They use DOCTYPE - the first line of the source - sniffing to determine which (X)HTML version the web page is written for. If the page indicates the use of a strict version of (X)HTML, these browsers will render the page in a strict standards compliant mode. Everything will be rendered according to the strict standards as proposed by The WWW Consortium. Your pages will look the same both in IE and Mozilla, however don't be fooled by IE's relaxed attitude towards block/inline content - do read up on this in the specs. If you preview your pages in Mozilla first you will save a lot of time, because it's not as forgiving when you make mistakes.
In quirks mode you can use all the dirty tricks from the old days. Everything will look horrible accros different browsers, and the source will be next to unmaintainable!
The quirks/strict standards modes are triggered by these doctypes respectively:
Quiks mode:
HTML 3.2
HTML 4.01 Transitional
HTML 4.01 Frameset
XHTML 1.0 Transitional
XHTML 1.0 Frameset
Strict standards mode:
HTML 4.01 Strict
XHTML 1.0 Strict
XHTML 1.1
I'd advise everyone to write (X)HTML to the strict versions and make the www a better place to be for all of us.
zShouldn't that be:
But many developers (willingly or ignorantly) prefer MS's approach and most users (willingly or ignorantly) use Internet Explorer. It is very expensive for companies to implement Mozzila compatible versions of their webpages for the minority of internet users who don't use IE.I'm tired of hearing this argument! If you just adhere to the standards when creating web pages you'll be just fine. In fact, you'd be better off as your pages will be much more easy to maintain, and you'll benefit greatly from all the available features that come with CSS. Try weighing the cost of maintaining a tag soup IE optimized (ugh!) page against a page using strict standards and the latter will win anytime!
IE is way behind Mozilla and Opera, it doesn't even support application/xhtml+xml, which is (or should be) used for XHTML. And don't get me started on the XML-declaration, IE chokes on this and throws itself into quirks mode when rendering your content.
zActually SCO and FUD are deprecated. Please use the composite form: SCUD.
zAs in XenomorphOS?
Oh yeah, then I bet we can make a new logo of Tux with a Chestburster coming out of him. :-)
zI forgot to mention that I like to write with my native language's accented characters (when writing in Danish that is) rather than having to escape them using UTF.
zI agree - W3C is where it's at.
I've just realized though that IE has a severe deficiency which is somewhat of a showstopper for the adoption of XHTML - it ignores the XML declaration in XHTML documents, like this:
IE expects to encouter the DOCTYPE first, which doesn't make sense - and would be non-valid XHTML markup. When you feed IE with this as text/html, it's throws it in to quirks mode!
Sure, the XML declaration is not strictly required, however if you read the W3C XHTML spec it says:
An XML declaration is not required in all XML documents; however XHTML document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in all their documents. Such a declaration is required when the character encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 or UTF-16 and no encoding was determined by a higher-level protocol. Here is an example of an XHTML document. In this example, the XML declaration is included.I know XHTML shouldn't be sent as text/html, but it's convenient in a transition and IE wouldn'y understand application/xhtml+xml anyway.
The "simple" CSS Complex Spiral Demo does a good job of demonstrating some of IE's broken CSS. I also like the distorded edition too - very creative usage of CSS!
z[emphasis mine]
Or next to irrelevant! All the exploited Windows services I know of run with root privileges on a default setup.
And in the case of exploiting security holes in programs (like IE and Outlook) your typical user - in session - is not likely a non-root user. Definately not on the Win95/98/Me versions of Windows, and most likely not on Win2K either.
zFrom the site:
Who made this site? SCO employees? :-)
zYou're not seriously suggesting that SCO will indeed turn out to be Linus' father? If so, wouldn't that make RMS Linus' sister?
No... that's not true! That's impossible!
Now _I_ feel unclean. My apologies to Mr. Torvalds and Mr. Stallman.
zMy sentiments exactly!
The weird part is though, why in the world would you be required to depend on RPC (Remote procedure call) capabilities to manage local configuration of your box? Sure sure, no one could possibly ever think of interfering with our own client/server conversation done over a real (as in physically connected and exposed) interface?
zIncidentally, the name Sid was also selected from Toy Story (like Woody, Potato, etc.).
From the FAQ:
zThe classic 50's, 60's kinda voice, yes - thanks for noticing. :-)
zYou mean the same Gartner Group that recommended people to halt Linux deployment because of all the SCUD (SCO FUD)?
Wait a minute ... no, no, none of this adds up at all! :-)
zNow, I can actually imagine Tom Tucker delivering this breaking news. :-)
Now all we need is to end it with the unforgettable: "Now back to Diane being a bitch. Diane?"
zUnless that part is censored on the new DVD's, he actually says "I like where this is going!", not "Your mom too?". :-)
But that's nothing, how a bout this one:
Quagmire: I don't know fellas, I think there's potential in this crowd! Heh.
He approches a woman at the other end of the bar.
Quagmire: Hey, honey! Why don't you turn around and show me the lower East Side!
(The 'honey' turns around and answers...)
Woman: Sure!
(...in a gruff, manly voice.)
Quagmire: Whoa! Transvestite! Back off! Wait a sec, pre-op or post-op?
Tranny: Pre-op.
Quagmire: Whoa! Transvestite! Back off!
z"I felt guilty once but she woke up half way through".
That's just so Quagmire! :-)
zThis is great news, indeed!!!
Not so long ago I read that Seth was also about to do a direct-to-DVD Family Guy movie. Perhaps FOX changed their minds and wanted whole season instead?
Seth's previous comments from an interview:
"It's all come down to the budget right now. We're hashing it out [...] It would be a direct-to-DVD project."
But wait, there's more. This might still be on the rumor stage, but something about FOX having Seth create another series. Do a Google search! In short:
This series focuses on a family consisting of Stan, a right-leaning C.I.A. agent; his wife; their two kids, including a liberal daughter; a housebound alien named Roger; and a French-speaking goldfish. Like "Family Guy," MacFarlane plans to provide several of the character voices.
It sounds weird, I know. :-)
zReally? Do you have a link I can refer to when I reach our Minister of Culture?
zMore importantly, what the hell is "code page 1252"? Mostly likely this is Microsoft code page 1252, which is NOT the Latin-1 charset I know, as in ISO-8859-1?
Embrace and extend, indeed!
zDamn, I meant content providers as in "contending content providers"? :-)
zWell, actually there is a loophole, but it's very inconvenient. The shops where I used to buy my DVD's have converted to web shops - that is, they've established US-based companies with DVD stock operating out of Germany.
You do pay DKK and the DVD's are delivered within a couple of days, and it's also a bit cheaper than before. This sounds sweet at first glance, but the fact remains: you can't browse region 1 titles at a local store anymore, and if a DVD is defunct you have to mail it back to Germany and wait for a new one to arrive.
Still, the EUCD sucks for obstructing free trade in this way. Basically, you may only resell DVD's originating from within the EU.
zOh, I know! However, I'm not blaming copyright legislation for the region coding itself. I am blaming the contend providers for that (e.g. the studios). You see the fact that EU happens to be region 2 is just a coincidence for the EUCD, but it's a damn good convenience for the studios.
See my other reply in this thread.
zI guess that remains to be seen.
However, bear this in mind. I was told by my once local region 1 shop that even before the EUCD, the studios (or their representatives in Denmark) were already quite trigger happy and tried to have the region 1 DVD reselling stopped - however without success with respects to local lobbying. The EUCD changed that of course, which was lobbying on a higher level and you can count that as a success on their part.
They are now working towards having the region modding of DVD players made illegal (of course they've been at this even before the EUCD). This is still legal here, that is nobody interprets the EUCD as prohibiting this. BTW, I buy Pioneer players, and even Pioneer accept the fact that their players are being region modded as the players are not warranty voided after the operation. And no, it's not my local shop providing the warranty, it is actually still Pioneer themselves - at least that's what my local shop told me. Great service on Pioneer's behalf if you ask me.
z