Opera guesses encoding for "applicatio n/xml"

[Christoph Schneegans]

Hi!

Okay, so positions on "text/html" XHTML are totally contradicting. Anyway!
I hope there's more consensus about "applicatio n/xml" XHTML.

I've recently learned that Opera 9.0b2 does not only evaluate HTTP header,
BOM and XML declaration to determine the character encoding of an XHTML
document sent as "applicatio n/xml", but also the "meta" element. For
example, <http://schneegans.de/sv/test-cases/?case=meta-only-encoding> is
rendered as "Česká republika". In contrast, Firefox displays "?esk?
republika", and IE even aborts parsing.

If you agree with me and think that this behavior is wrong, you might
want to post a follow-up to <news:op******* ***********@new s.opera.com>.

--
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Denmark. And
therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Jeg er dansker!"

[Spartanicus]

Christoph Schneegans <Ch*******@Schn eegans.de> wrote:

Okay, so positions on "text/html" XHTML are totally contradicting. Anyway!
I've yet to see anyone successfully defend a single argument for sending
XHTML as text/html. The consensus is that Appendix C was a mistake.
I hope there's more consensus about "applicatio n/xml" XHTML.

XHTML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

--
Spartanicus

[Garmt de Vries]

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:24:19 +0200, Christoph Schneegans
<Ch*******@Schn eegans.de> wrote:

I've recently learned that Opera 9.0b2 does not only evaluate HTTP
header,
BOM and XML declaration to determine the character encoding of an XHTML
document sent as "applicatio n/xml", but also the "meta" element. For
example, <http://schneegans.de/sv/test-cases/?case=meta-only-encoding> is
rendered as "Česká republika". In contrast, Firefox displays "?esk?
republika", and IE even aborts parsing.

When I go to that page, I see:

Encoding from server (used by Opera):
iso-8859-2 (iso-8859-2)

Doesn't really look like "meta only"...

--
Garmt de Vries

[Christoph Schneegans]

"Spartanicu s" wrote:

I've yet to see anyone successfully defend a single argument for
sending XHTML as text/html.
For XHTML? More powerful means for validation, simpler syntax. For
text/html? IE wouldn't support it otherwise.
The consensus is that Appendix C was a mistake.

Your consensus.

I hope there's more consensus about "applicatio n/xml" XHTML.

XHTML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

That wouldn't change anything, and I guess you know that.

--
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Denmark. And
therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Jeg er dansker!"

[Christoph Schneegans]

Garmt de Vries wrote:

<http://schneegans.de/sv/test-cases/?case=meta-only-encoding>

When I go to that page, I see:

Encoding from server (used by Opera):
iso-8859-2 (iso-8859-2)

Doesn't really look like "meta only"...

<http://web-sniffer.net/?url=http://schneegans.de/sv/test-cases/%3Fcase=meta-only-encoding>

When still in doubt, use Telnet.

--
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Denmark. And
therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Jeg er dansker!"

[Spartanicus]

Christoph Schneegans <Ch*******@Schn eegans.de> wrote:

I've yet to see anyone successfully defend a single argument for
sending XHTML as text/html.
For XHTML? More powerful means for validation,

Yawn, we've disproved that plenty of times
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm
simpler syntax.
Nonsense.
For text/html? IE wouldn't support it otherwise.

IE doesn't support XHTML period, falsely labeling it as text/html merely
prevents that from being demonstrated more clearly.

The consensus is that Appendix C was a mistake.

Your consensus.

The consensus amongst the members of this group. To date no-one has
managed to uphold an argument for serving XHTML as text/html, feel free
to confirm this via the archives.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ml+text%2Fhtml

I hope there's more consensus about "applicatio n/xml" XHTML.

XHTML should be served as application/xhtml+xml.

That wouldn't change anything, and I guess you know that.

You professed a hope for "consensus" about serving XHTML as
application/xml from. There is broad consensus, but it is to serve XHTML
as application/xhtml+xml as per w3c's recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

Specifically:

3.3. 'application/xml'

The 'application/xml' media type [RFC3023] is a generic media type for
XML documents, and the definition of 'application/xml' does not preclude
serving XHTML documents as that media type. Any XHTML Family document
MAY be served as 'application/xml'.

However, authors should be aware that such a document may not always be
processed as XHTML (e.g. hyperlinks may not be recognized), depending on
user agents. Generic XML processors might recognize it as just an XML
document which includes elements and attributes from the XHTML namespace
(and others), and may not have a priori knowledge what to do with such a
document beyond they can do for generic XML documents.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-typ...pplication-xml

--
Spartanicus

[Andreas Prilop]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Spartanicus wrote:

IE doesn't support XHTML period, falsely labeling it as text/html merely
prevents that from being demonstrated more clearly.

What means "support" or "doesn't support"?
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...otation.x.html
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht...notation.xhtml

are identical resources - only the URL is different. Yet IE 6
behaves differently because one of the URLs ends in ".html".
*.x.html is displayed, *.xhtml is offered for download.
Silly IE!

[Spartanicus]

Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrz n-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:

IE doesn't support XHTML period, falsely labeling it as text/html merely
prevents that from being demonstrated more clearly.

What means "support" or "doesn't support"?

Parse it as XHTML, not HTML.

--
Spartanicus

[Christoph Schneegans]

"Spartanicu s" wrote:

For XHTML? More powerful means for validation,
Yawn, we've disproved that plenty of times
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

You surely intended to point to
<http://www.spartanicus .utvinternet.ie/custom_dtd.htm> . I'd like to know
how you want to spot improper or error-prone markup such as

<p title=""style=" "></p>

<!------><hr><!------>

<span lang="klingon"> ...</span>

with this custom DTD.

simpler syntax.

Nonsense.

Yeah,

<p ltr<span></span</p>

is obviously simpler syntax than

<p dir="ltr"><span ></span></p>

because it's shorter.
IE doesn't support XHTML period,
It doesn't support HTML either, see e.g.
<http://schneegans.de/web/xhtml/shorttag/>. Now I want you to present an
XHTML 1.0 document that conforms to Appendix C and is not supported by IE.
You professed a hope for "consensus" about serving XHTML as
application/xml from. There is broad consensus, but it is to serve
XHTML as application/xhtml+xml as per w3c's recommendation:
Just show me an user agent that supports "applicatio n/xhtml+xml" but does
not support "applicatio n/xml".
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

Did you really overlook
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#text-html>?

--
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Denmark. And
therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Jeg er dansker!"

[Spartanicus]

Christoph Schneegans <Ch*******@Schn eegans.de> wrote:

For XHTML? More powerful means for validation,
Yawn, we've disproved that plenty of times
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

You surely intended to point to
<http://www.spartanicus .utvinternet.ie/custom_dtd.htm> .

A misconception like "XHTML is stricter" is common. If you are not
specific and only say "More powerful means for validation", then all I
can do is point to the main page that includes a refute of this most
common misconception.
I'd like to know
how you want to spot improper or error-prone markup such as

<p title=""style=" "></p>

<!------><hr><!------>

<span lang="klingon"> ...</span>

with this custom DTD.
All additional XHTML constraints can be emulated for HTML validation.
The resource you quoted makes no claim that it emulates all these
additional constraints, it merely demonstrates how it can be done using
a common subset.

Not all DTD validator checkable constraints are governed by the DTD.
This is noted on the quoted resource, and it links to an explanation of
how to change non DTD constraints, again using a common example.

That said, the practical value of being able to machine check even for
all additional constraints that are part of XHTML 1.x (some of which are
only part of XHTML 1.1 such as your "<span lang="klingon"> ...</span>"
example) is nil as long as the result is parsed by HTML clients.
Ultimately this invalidates all potential arguments in favour of XHTML.

simpler syntax.

Nonsense.

Yeah,

Again, if you want to make a point you need to be specific. Loose
unqualified remarks such as "simpler syntax" don't allow for a proper
response.
<p ltr<span></span</p>

is obviously simpler syntax than

<p dir="ltr"><span ></span></p>

because it's shorter.
You've lost me, are you suggesting that "<p ltr<span></span</p>" is
proper syntax and/or valid under XHTML?

IE doesn't support XHTML period,

It doesn't support HTML either, see e.g.
<http://schneegans.de/web/xhtml/shorttag/>.

Other flaws do not form an argument for a claim that IE supports XHTML.
Now I want you to present an
XHTML 1.0 document that conforms to Appendix C and is not supported by IE.

You professed a hope for "consensus" about serving XHTML as
application/xml from. There is broad consensus, but it is to serve
XHTML as application/xhtml+xml as per w3c's recommendation:

Just show me an user agent that supports "applicatio n/xhtml+xml" but does
not support "applicatio n/xml".

You are avoiding the point made that contrary to your claim that the
media type used made no difference, that a document served as
application/xml may not be recognized as XHTML.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

Did you really overlook
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#text-html>?

The consensus I referred to pertained to this group, it has rejected
serving XHTML as text/html in favour of the view that if XHTML is to be
used at all then it should be served as application/xhtml+xml

--
Spartanicus