By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,624 Members | 2,229 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,624 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors?

P: n/a
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).
************************************************** *******************
Apr 20 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
28 Replies


P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
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
Apr 20 '07 #2

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
************************************************** *******************
Apr 20 '07 #3

P: n/a
Neo Geshel wrote:
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>>NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
posts by arrogant bastards who think they're better than mere humans.
>>
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 are not excused to do something stupid and rude by threatening to do
something even more stupid and rude. And if you've really got 16 years
of experience of using the Internet, maybe you'd know how to narrow down
appropriate NGs. Or maybe that 16 years of Internet experience includes
only 16 minutes of USENET experience?
>
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.
Um, thanks, but we already know what's wrong with multi-posting. What'd
you do, just Google this up in the last half-hour?
>Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?


It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,
....and yet, you came here; what's that say about you?
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.
Too bad you don't have a two-by-four you can whack us with, or maybe a
Taser; that'd get our attention. Pity you have to resort to such crude
means as using words and ALL CAPS.
>
>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.
Then induce *standards* mode. Combine this with Sherm's suggestion and
(Please pay attention here; I WANT YOU TO *FOCUS*) you get HTML in
standards mode.
>
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.
I suggest you not expect a long line of helpful folks. Dearie.

--
John
Apr 20 '07 #4

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>>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?
No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.
>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
This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.
>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?
No, "we" aren't. You seriously think you're the first person to try this?
Do you think that the advice given to everyone else who has tried it will
be any different for you?

Get over yourself and type "XHTML" into a Google Groups search. Then read
and learn.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #5

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:

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 postit
that way.
Would you rather I multi-post?
No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.
okay, .misc was useless. I agree. But .site-design was chosen because,
had you actually read to the end of the post, you would have seen that I
am also requesting design critiques.

But alt.html is one of the busiest NG for html/xhtml. And looking for a
relevant response always boils down to the law of averages.

As for both multiposting *and* crossposting being inappropriate, let’s
see what Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Hmm.... I appear to be a rather good Netcitizen when it comes to
multi/crossposting. If I were to drop the .misc, then all of the other
NG’s would be on-topic for my *original* post. In fact, I could probably
have added alt.html.critique, due to my request for a design critique at
the end of the post.
>>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
This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.
There is no DTD that can, by itself, do as good a job as { XHTML 1.1 DTD
+ [application/xml for IE | application/xhtml+xml for everything else] +
XML Prolog [ + XSLT Transformation for IE] } across the “big three” of
IE, Firefox and Opera.

Besides, I have, at least on my own machine, achieved “purity”. I have
managed to implement a perfect XHTML 1.1 page, conforming to all of the
XHTML 1.1 specs, that works across both IE and Mozilla/Opera.

However, because I have multiple copies of IE on my machine (from v3 to
v7), I am unsure if my copies of [5 <= IE < 7] are providing accurate
results, and all the other WinDoze machines available to me are XP
boxen, and those have already upgraded to IE 7. Hence my request for
field results from other people using [5 <= IE < 7], which was the *only
thing* I actually requested in my post. You would have realized this,
had you actually taken the time to read the entire post.

Should I start spoon-feeding the Usenet community the specifics of what
I look for? Is it really that hard to properly read a post before
answering??
>>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?
No, "we" aren't. You seriously think you're the first person to try this?
Do you think that the advice given to everyone else who has tried it will
be any different for you?
No, but I make it a point to mention what I have already tried, what I
have discounted because I am not going in that direction, and what my
objectives are. The problem I run into is that people tend to answer my
posts with advice that mirrors things I have clearly mentioned that I
have already done; as if they failed to read the whole post to begin
with. Hence, my attempt to “focus” readers into the same direction that
I am attempting to go.
Get over yourself and type "XHTML" into a Google Groups search. Then read
and learn.
I wasn’t looking for advice. I had clearly stated in my post thatI was
looking for *field results* from the link I posted. I wanted to see if
people managed to run into any errors that I haven’t been able to.

To wit: The site works just fine with [5 <= IE < 7] on my machine. Does
it work fine on your copy of [5 <= IE < 7] too? If yes, ignore post and
move on. If no, tell me (along with specifics), so I know that there is
at least *one* person out there that has a problem.

Or in other words, RTFP.

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” (alluppercase).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 21 '07 #6

P: n/a
John Hosking wrote:
Neo Geshel wrote:
>Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:

NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT MANY ON USENET FAIL TO READ
posts by arrogant bastards who think they're better than mere humans.
>>>
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 postit
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 are not excused to do something stupid and rude by threatening to do
something even more stupid and rude. And if you've really got 16 years
of experience of using the Internet, maybe you'd know how to narrow down
appropriate NGs. Or maybe that 16 years of Internet experience includes
only 16 minutes of USENET experience?
>>
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.
Um, thanks, but we already know what's wrong with multi-posting. What'd
you do, just Google this up in the last half-hour?
No, it was an attempt to contrast what would be, at the most, a minor
gaffe (when cross-posting incorrectly), with a major faux-pas
(multi-posting). Cross-posting, when done correctly and in moderation,
is a healthy way of posting on Usenet. It only becomes damaging when
there are excessive (5+) groups targeted, and when most groups (if not
all) are completely off-topic with the content of the post. Neither case
matches my method of cross-posting.

But hey, if you really want to learn about cross-posting and
multi-posting *yourself*, here’s the article I found most succinct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting

Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
cross-posting.
>>Do you seriously expect constructive replies after that?


It’s always a fool’s hope to expect constructive replies from Usenet,
...and yet, you came here; what's that say about you?
And all you provide is ridicule and sarcasm. What does that say about you?
>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.
Too bad you don't have a two-by-four you can whack us with, or maybe a
Taser; that'd get our attention. Pity you have to resort to such crude
means as using words and ALL CAPS.
I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
*before* answering. Tried it for the first time today, will see how it
ends up. If I actually get some *field results* (the objective of my
post, had anyone actually read it), then I might consider using such a
“focusing” method again. If I get no on-topic and appropriate replies,
then obviously, I will abandon that method.
>>
>>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.
Then induce *standards* mode. Combine this with Sherm's suggestion and
(Please pay attention here; I WANT YOU TO *FOCUS*) you get HTML in
standards mode.
And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
me, on my own machine. I have gotten everything to work perfectly, In
full “standards compliance” mode, to boot. My post was about getting
*field results* from anyone who can view the link with [5 <= IE < 7]
that is not multi-installed beside IE 7.

Or didn’t you read that far?
>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.
I suggest you not expect a long line of helpful folks. Dearie.
Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.

...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” (alluppercase).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 21 '07 #7

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>>Sherm Pendley wrote:

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?

No, I would rather you choose one group. This doesn't belong in .misc, or
in .site-design, and alt.html is well-nigh useless.

okay, .misc was useless. I agree. But .site-design was chosen because,
had you actually read to the end of the post, you would have seen that
I am also requesting design critiques.
I did read the whole post. Why would I respond to something I hadn't read?
You asked for advice about technical problems you're having with XHTML, not
about the layout, navigability, color palette, or other design issues.
But alt.html is one of the busiest NG for html/xhtml.
I didn't say it wasn't busy, I said it was useless. Alt.html is where amateurs
go where they can feed of one another's ignorance without being interrupted by
facts and good advice.

Come to think of it, the advice you'd get there is probably exactly what you'd
call "proper" - workarounds and hacks that compensate to varying degrees for a
basically flawed idea, with no one pointing out to you that it'd be much easier
to simply avoid the problem in the first place.
>>>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

This is getting to be a common theme for you, complaining about problems
you've created for yourself. If quirks mode causes problems, use a DTD
that doesn't trigger it. Problem solved.

There is no DTD that can, by itself, do as good a job as { XHTML 1.1
DTD + [application/xml for IE | application/xhtml+xml for everything
else] + XML Prolog [ + XSLT Transformation for IE] } across the “big
three” of IE, Firefox and Opera.
First you come here talking of the difficulties your "solution" is causing
you, now you're claiming it does "as good a job" of avoiding quirks mode as
the recommended solution. Make up your mind.

Plain HTML with a DTD that triggers standards-mode requires no browser
sniffing, no games with the MIME type, and no XSLT transforms to make it
work with IE. Something that does require you to jump through these hoops
is most certainly *not* doing as good a job.
Should I start spoon-feeding the Usenet community the specifics of
what I look for? Is it really that hard to properly read a post before
answering??
I know what you're looking for - you're looking for the magic silver bullet
that will make XHTML work perfectly for every browser.

There is none. Get over it.
Hence, my attempt to “focus” readers into the same direction
that I am attempting to go.
You are going in the wrong direction; no amount of "focus" will change that.
I wasn’t looking for advice.
Too bad. This is usenet - you get advice whether you want it or not. One
would think, in all those many years of experience you claim to have, you
would have learned that.
Or in other words, RTFP.
I did read it. I'm just not the slightest bit interested in helping you jump
through the hoops you're creating for yourself with your stubborn insistence
on using XHTML. It offers no benefits to you or the end user, and (as you've
discovered) cannot be delivered in a reliably compatible fashion.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #8

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
cross-posting.
You were off-topic in two of the four groups you posted to.
I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
*before* answering.
Being polite works well for that. Much better, in fact, than shouting
at and insulting the people whose attention you're hoping to retain.
And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
me, on my own machine.
Because first, it's not backwards. It's still the standard, and XHTML
hasn't yet gotten to the point where it's reliably compatible.

And second, the point is that, however well XHTML may work on your own
machine, there are a *lot* of other machines out there on which it
does not work, and won't in the forseeable future.
Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.
Oh, so you get to decide when the thread's over now, and who's allowed
to post to it? Who made you King of Usenet?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #9

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
First you come here talking of the difficulties your "solution" is causing
you, now you're claiming it does "as good a job" of avoiding quirks mode as
the recommended solution. Make up your mind.
An analysis of my original post.

First paragraph after the “Greetings”:
I explain the objective of what I have accomplished: a “perfect”
XHTML 1.1 implementation.

Second paragraph:
I explain the problems that I had (past tense) ran into with
implementing XHTML 1.1 on IE, and provided an explanation of my
workaround for IE’s inability to handle application/xhtml+xml, and why I
had to use application/xml instead of text/html.

Third paragraph:
An explanation of the error I ran into when I *tried* (again, past
tense) to use the XSLT transformation with a *standard* XHTML doctype,
with the actual on-screen example bounded by <output></output>.

Fourth paragraph:
MY SOLUTION (already implemented): An “enhanced” XHTML1.1 DOCTYPE
just for IE that is W3C-approved. SUCCESS! I have achieved a “perfect”
XHTML implementation!

Fifth paragraph (and bulleted list):
MY BIG WORRY, AND THEREFORE WHAT I AM REQUESTING: Does this solution
work only for me? Does my setup (IE7, with side-by-side installs of IE 5
to 6) work simply because IE 5 to 6 exist in a side-by-side install? And
finally, does this example of full XHTML implementation work with
*anyone* who has *just* IE6, or *just* IE5.5, or *just* IE5?
Essentially, “if anyone who receives the error message (as seen
above) when viewing my example with IE, could they please tell me”.

Final paragraphs:
An open offer to critique the design, a link to the page in question,
and a warning that the design might change without notice.
Summary of this analysis:
Paragraph 1 was the overview of my objective.
Paragraphs 2 through 4 was background information (a description of
the problems I encountered and the process I used to achieve success).
Paragraph 5 was a request for others to double-check my work to
ensure I was right - that IE 5-7 works flawlessly with the example, and
does not throw an error.

Was my post really so complicated that you couldn’t figure it out? How
close to pablum do I need to make my posts so that they can be
understood? At no time did I ever ask for help in fixing a problem. The
problem was already fixed, and I took pains to make that clear. What I
wanted was for people to double-check my work, to see if IE from v5
onward worked correctly, without throwing an XSLT processing error.

...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” (alluppercase).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 21 '07 #10

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
Was my post really so complicated that you couldn’t figure it out? How
close to pablum do I need to make my posts so that they can be
understood?
I understand you perfectly. You created a problem for yourself, patched
it up with a bunch of half-baked workarounds, and now you expect us all
to test those workarounds without pointing out that they wouldn't have
been necessary if you hadn't created the problem in the first place.
At no time did I ever ask for help in fixing a problem.
What makes you think I care what you asked for? I'm posting for the
benefit of those who might learn from your mistakes. You can choose to
be among that group or not - it makes no difference to me either way.
The problem was already fixed
There would have been nothing to "fix" if you hadn't created the problem
in the first place. There would have been no "fix" to test if you hadn't
patched the symptoms with half-baked workarounds instead of addressing
the real problem.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #11

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>Clearly, I haven’t been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
cross-posting.
You were off-topic in two of the four groups you posted to.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design
- In original post: “Any and all comments about the *design* would
also be appreciated.” On-topic.

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
- I am authoring an XHTML site. In the absence of an XHTML NG, I’d
say that this one is fair game.

alt.html
- see previous.

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc
- possibly off-topic (a nearly dead NG), but very debatable since
XHTML doesn’t have a NG of its own, and I *am* doing something rather
esoteric...

I'd say I was on-topic for three out of the four, at the very least;
with the fourth being strongly debatable.
>I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
*before* answering.
Being polite works well for that. Much better, in fact, than shouting
at and insulting the people whose attention you're hoping to retain.
I may have been too harsh in shouting it out; but - aside from the
shouting - if you found that paragraph insulting, you seriously need to
grow a thicker skin and actually get out into the real world once in a
while. That first paragraph was a simple request for people to read and
understand the entire post before giving their $0.02 worth, nothing more
or less.

So far, I have yet to see a single post that has understood my original
request (to any degree whatsoever), and provided an appropriate answer.
I’d say that the frustrations that drove me to create that first
“shouting” paragraph are well-founded.
>And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
me, on my own machine.
Because first, it's not backwards. It's still the standard, and XHTML
hasn't yet gotten to the point where it's reliably compatible.

And second, the point is that, however well XHTML may work on your own
machine, there are a *lot* of other machines out there on which it
does not work, and won't in the forseeable future.
HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: “HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC 15445:2000
are the most recent and final versions of HTML.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)

The future is all about XHTML (and to a greater, long-term extent, XML),
and I intend to be at the head of the line. That is my choice, and so
far I have found plenty of cell phones, handhelds (like the Blackberry)
and other devices that work just fine with XHTML 1.1.
>Fair enough. You’ve given your opinion. Good-bye.
Oh, so you get to decide when the thread's over now, and who's allowed
to post to it? Who made you King of Usenet?
One of my most important maxims is, “if you have nothing *constructive*
to say, don’t say anything at all”. While I don’talways succeed in
following that maxim to the letter, at least I make the effort. The vast
majority of *his* post, however, was all about ridicule, sarcasm, his
own opinion and ad hominem attacks. Aside from one or two small points,
it was *far* from constructive.

...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” (alluppercase).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 21 '07 #12

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>Was my post really so complicated that you couldn’t figure it out? How
close to pablum do I need to make my posts so that they can be
understood?
I understand you perfectly. You created a problem for yourself, patched
it up with a bunch of half-baked workarounds, and now you expect us all
to test those workarounds without pointing out that they wouldn't have
been necessary if you hadn't created the problem in the first place.
I never created a problem. I just found a way to solve it, but I wasn’t
sure if my methods worked on only my own machines, or if they were
successful beyond what I had at my fingertips.
>At no time did I ever ask for help in fixing a problem.
What makes you think I care what you asked for? I'm posting for the
benefit of those who might learn from your mistakes. You can choose to
be among that group or not - it makes no difference to me either way.
I made no mistake aside from the misguided *desire* to support Internet
Explorer.

The XHTML is semantically and structurally correct. The page is being
served up with application/xml for IE, which - while not perfect - is
still allowed for XHTML. The DOCTYPE has been extended in the very
manner that the W3C recommends. The link comes up on all my versions of
IE without any XSLT parsing errors at all.

The entire purpose of my original post was: does anyone else with just
one version of IE installed get an XSLT parse error? If so, please
contact me.

And that is, after all, the basic purpose of Usenet: To ask questions
and get appropriate replies that are on-topic to the original question.

Too bad none of your replies met this criteria.
>The problem was already fixed
There would have been nothing to "fix" if you hadn't created the problem
in the first place. There would have been no "fix" to test if you hadn't
patched the symptoms with half-baked workarounds instead of addressing
the real problem.

sherm--
Then what about all of those people with CSS “fixes” and “hacks” that
need to be tested by other people, despite all relevant browsers being
in “standards compliance” mode? The IE peekaboo bug is just one example.
The Holly Hack is another that comes to mind.

Creating a site with a new and unique design is all about creating,
testing, modifying and testing again. Eventually, requests will have to
be made to see if other people get the same results that you do, because
it is unlikely that you can cover *all* of the variables with just the
tools at your disposal. Even Microsoft, the biggest software company in
the world, beta-tests their products on volunteers who are willing to
check it out.

I have done nothing more or less than that. And yet, I get flamed by you
for it; having my implementation (my “half-baked workaround”) held up
and proclaimed far and wide as an example of what *not* to do, rather
than seeing if it really is effective and reporting conditions under
which it is not.

Why?

Why attack so vehemently, without even checking the link with your own
copy of IE to see if I may actually be on to something?

The problem is not me. And it is not my “half-baked workaround”.

The problem is you and your attitude. It stinks.

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” (alluppercase).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 21 '07 #13

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: “HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC
15445:2000 are the most recent and final versions of HTML.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)
Wikipedia doesn't define HTML; the W3C does that. OK, technically the
W3C issues proposals, and it's up to the IETF to ISO approve (or not)
them as standards, but in practice most everyone treats the latest W3C
proposal as a de facto standard.

The W3C has more or less openly admitted that XHTML is too ambitious
and poorly supported, and they've chartered a new HTML working group
a little over a month ago:

<http://www.w3.org/html/>

The group's charter states that both "classic" and XML syntax will be
supported. That statement, and the formation of the working group in the
first place, is a clear admission that browser support for XHTML is not
as far along as the W3C had hoped it would be by now.
The future is all about XHTML
Probably, but the browsers people are using right now have non-trivial
problems with it.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #14

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
And that is, after all, the basic purpose of Usenet: To ask questions
and get appropriate replies
Wrong again. Usenet is an open discussion, not a help desk. No one here
is obligated to answer your question. The only obligation we have here
is to stay within the topic of the group charter.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #15

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: “HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC
15445:2000 are the most recent and final versions of HTML.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)
Wikipedia doesn't define HTML; the W3C does that. OK, technically the
W3C issues proposals, and it's up to the IETF to ISO approve (or not)
them as standards, but in practice most everyone treats the latest W3C
proposal as a de facto standard.

The W3C has more or less openly admitted that XHTML is too ambitious
and poorly supported, and they've chartered a new HTML working group
a little over a month ago:

<http://www.w3.org/html/>

The group's charter states that both "classic" and XML syntax will be
supported. That statement, and the formation of the working group in the
first place, is a clear admission that browser support for XHTML is not
as far along as the W3C had hoped it would be by now.
That is news to me. I have had my mind on other things for the last
little while, so I haven’t been keeping up on the W3C’s actions as I
usually do.

However, it appears all due to Microsoft’s IE web browser, and their
inability to update it to the latest web standards:
http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-pressrelease
Essentially they are saying, because IE is so forgiving of mistakes, and
can’t handle the newer standards, HTML has to be given some extralife
support until IE catches up to Firefox/Opera.

Thank goodness IE is loosing ground - some large web sites are showing
IE usage at less than 70%.
>The future is all about XHTML
Probably, but the browsers people are using right now have non-trivial
problems with it.

sherm--
Make that browser, singular. As in, Internet Explorer. Firefox and Opera
both have wonderful support for XHTML, and many cell phones and
handhelds make use of Opera’s mobile version. If IE usage keeps
accelerating downwards as it has been for the last year, it should
become another Netscape within the next 2-3 years. As in, not worth the
bother.

...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” (alluppercase).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 21 '07 #16

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>And that is, after all, the basic purpose of Usenet: To ask questions
and get appropriate replies
Wrong again. Usenet is an open discussion, not a help desk. No one here
is obligated to answer your question. The only obligation we have here
is to stay within the topic of the group charter.

sherm--
The issue is not one of obligation. I do not *expect* my questions to be
answered, nor do I take offence if my question remains unanswered. To
wit: I really do not care if I am Warnocked. That’s life.

If my posts *are* replied to, however, I would logically expect and
appreciate the replies to be on-topic and in direct relation to the
question(s) in the post that is being replied to. Attacks out of left
field (topic-wise) are not logical, and definitely *not* expected or
welcome.

It’s like me saying, “I just had my car re-painted. Has the paint job
been done well over the entire car, or do you see some places they missed?”
And your reply being, “Why did you get a Pontiac in the first place?
It’s useless to paint them because they never last. You should have
gotten a Ford.”

...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” (alluppercase).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 21 '07 #17

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
If my posts *are* replied to, however, I would logically expect and
appreciate the replies to be on-topic and in direct relation to the
question(s) in the post that is being replied to.
You asked for feedback about getting XHTML to work reliably and portably;
I took a step back and responded that I don't think getting XHTML to work
that way is a realistic goal in the first place.

It wasn't the answer you wanted, but it was related and on topic.

In my opinion, the answer someone asks for is not necessarily the answer he
or she needs. Simply answering the question as stated may result in fewer
ruffled feathers in the short term, but in many cases it's less helpful in
the longer term.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #18

P: n/a
On 04/20/2007 05:04 PM, Neo Geshel wrote:
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.
[...]
I'd try to help you if I had the Internet Explorer, but I don't.

You'd probably get better responses in one of the
microsoft.public.inetexplorer.* newsgroups.

(Followups set to alt.html)
Apr 21 '07 #19

P: n/a
On 04/21/2007 12:11 AM, Neo Geshel wrote:
[...]
HTML is a dead end.
Not necessarily.
It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC 15445:2000
are the most recent and final versions of HTML.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)
[...]
XHTML is dying, and Microsoft and the web design gurus are killing it.

http://groups.google.com/gr*********...******@4ax.com

http://groups.google.com/gr*********...*@news.song.fi

(Followups to alt.html)
Apr 21 '07 #20

P: n/a
On Apr 21, 4:37 pm, Neo Geshel <got...@geshel.orgwrote:
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <got...@geshel.orgwrites:
HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: "HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC
15445:2000 are the most recent and final versions of HTML."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)
Wikipedia doesn't define HTML; the W3C does that. OK, technically the
W3C issues proposals, and it's up to the IETF to ISO approve (or not)
them as standards, but in practice most everyone treats the latest W3C
proposal as a de facto standard.
The W3C has more or less openly admitted that XHTML is too ambitious
and poorly supported, and they've chartered a new HTML working group
a little over a month ago:
<http://www.w3.org/html/>
The group's charter states that both "classic" and XML syntax will be
supported. That statement, and the formation of the working group in the
first place, is a clear admission that browser support for XHTML is not
as far along as the W3C had hoped it would be by now.

That is news to me. I have had my mind on other things for the last
little while, so I haven't been keeping up on the W3C's actions as I
usually do.

However, it appears all due to Microsoft's IE web browser, and their
inability to update it to the latest web standards:http://www.w3.org/2007/03/html-pressrelease
Essentially they are saying, because IE is so forgiving of mistakes, and
can't handle the newer standards, HTML has to be given some extra life
support until IE catches up to Firefox/Opera.

Thank goodness IE is loosing ground - some large web sites are showing
IE usage at less than 70%.
The future is all about XHTML
Probably, but the browsers people are using right now have non-trivial
problems with it.
sherm--

Make that browser, singular. As in, Internet Explorer. Firefox and Opera
both have wonderful support for XHTML, and many cell phones and
handhelds make use of Opera's mobile version. If IE usage keeps
accelerating downwards as it has been for the last year, it should
become another Netscape within the next 2-3 years. As in, not worth the
bother.
This is not really true, IE still have a share of around 80 / 90% of
the browser market and a lot of people use IE7 which does not support
XHTML served as aplicationXHTML+XML, so unless you use a lot of hacks
you can't use it. CSS hacks have nothing to do with this argument as
they are not hard to get working and also IE's support for CSS as a
web standard is getting a lot better the PNG issue is a good example
of this.
A part from it being a little pointless in some insences, there is
nothing wrong with serving XHTML as text/html and the W3C recomend
this as a part of apendix C of the XHTML 1.0 recomendations.
They do not suggest useing XHTML 1.1 at all.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

Apr 21 '07 #21

P: n/a
Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:59:53 GMT from Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.org>:
If my posts *are* replied to, however, I would logically expect and
appreciate the replies to be on-topic and in direct relation to the
question(s) in the post that is being replied to.
When you're heading for an iceberg and asking for advice on making
the engines more efficient, it *is* on-topic and helpful to point out
that you're going in the wrong direction.

Too bad you're not willing to listen.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Apr 21 '07 #22

P: n/a
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:04:04 GMT, Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrote:
>NOTE: PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN ME THAT
....People who post in block capitals are a bunch of fucking nutters.

<plonk>

Apr 21 '07 #23

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
<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
Mine does.
• Your version of IE
Reported as 6.0.2600.0000.xpclient.010817-1148
• Your OS (32-bit/64-bit), including service packs
32-bit XP, no service packs.

That's not as dumb as it sounds, btw. I use this instance of XP for
testing purposes only, not for daily use. It runs in a virtualized
sandbox, it's behind a firewall that blocks all incoming connections,
and attempts at outgoing connections bring up an alert in the host
OS and have to be approved individually.
• Your version of MSXMLS installed
No idea. As I said, I've installed no updates, so whatever originally
shipped with XP.
• And the error message, if it differs significantly from above
It's identical.

Also, Safari 2.0.4 shows a completely blank white page.

So, even after what sounds like a great deal of work on your part to
work around the limitations of XHTML, the result *still* isn't even on
par with HTML.

Further testing shows that a simple automated translation to HTML 4.01
strict results in a page that *does* render reliably in all the browsers
I have at hand, including the ones that choke on the XHTML version. The
tested browsers all report standards mode rendering for the HTML also.

That being the case, I stand by my previous assertion. Trying to "fix"
XHTML is an exercise in futility, when simply using HTML to begin with
is both easier and more reliable.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #24

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
><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
Mine does.
>• Your version of IE
Reported as 6.0.2600.0000.xpclient.010817-1148
>• Your OS (32-bit/64-bit), including service packs
32-bit XP, no service packs.

That's not as dumb as it sounds, btw. I use this instance of XP for
testing purposes only, not for daily use. It runs in a virtualized
sandbox, it's behind a firewall that blocks all incoming connections,
and attempts at outgoing connections bring up an alert in the host
OS and have to be approved individually.
>• Your version of MSXMLS installed
No idea. As I said, I've installed no updates, so whatever originally
shipped with XP.
>• And the error message, if it differs significantly from above
It's identical.

Also, Safari 2.0.4 shows a completely blank white page.

So, even after what sounds like a great deal of work on your part to
work around the limitations of XHTML, the result *still* isn't even on
par with HTML.

Further testing shows that a simple automated translation to HTML 4.01
strict results in a page that *does* render reliably in all the browsers
I have at hand, including the ones that choke on the XHTML version. The
tested browsers all report standards mode rendering for the HTML also.

That being the case, I stand by my previous assertion. Trying to "fix"
XHTML is an exercise in futility, when simply using HTML to begin with
is both easier and more reliable.

sherm--

Thank you!! This is exactly what I need.

So, to confirm: are you saying that your XP is a default, un-upgraded
“virgin” install, pre-SP1? That is a very unusual setup these days, and
that alone *might* explain why you got the error message; but I’ll
consider your experience to be a significant first warning that I have
additional issues. My first Canary in this coal mine, as it were.

Could you also provide me with your browser’s user-agent? While Ihave
no intention of doing any sniffing based off of it (seeing as it can be
so easily spoofed... HTTP-ACCEPT is *far* more reliable than
HTTP-USER-AGENT for determining XHTML support), I wouldn’t mind seeing
what your browser’s UA looks like.

AS for Safari, I just discovered it for myself this morning. AFAIK, it’s
because Safari needs to be served application/xhtml+xml in order to go
into XHTML 1.1 mode. For some reason it doesn’t provide that mime-type
in its HTTP-ACCEPT response, but *does* provide application/xml, which
is why it is being served that. Strange.

That Canary is getting louder. Now all I need is additional
confirmations from other people and other versions of IE. After all,
just one thump on the head doesn’t mean the sky is falling.

Thanks.
...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” (alluppercase).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 21 '07 #25

P: n/a
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
So, to confirm: are you saying that your XP is a default, un-upgraded
“virgin” install, pre-SP1? That is a very unusual setup these days,
It's a VirtualPC instance - I keep it around to test unusual setups. :-)
Could you also provide me with your browser’s user-agent?
Which one? Whatever, here's both:

IE: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Safari: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/419
(KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/419.3

Unlike IE, my Safari instance is up to date.
That Canary is getting louder.
Search the archives for these groups, you'll find a whole choir's worth
of canaries. Like I said, you're not the first person to try this.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 21 '07 #26

P: n/a
Neo Geshel wrote:
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>>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.

Now, on *my* machine, I have reworked the resulting output so that IE
6 and lower does not throw this error

Mine does.

So, to confirm: are you saying that your XP is a default, un-upgraded
“virgin” install, pre-SP1? That is a very unusual setup these days, and
that alone *might* explain why you got the error message;
FYI, the same error happens in IE6 on Win2K, both up to date with all
patches. There are still plenty of non-XP boxes out there, you know.

--
Berg
Apr 22 '07 #27

P: n/a
I don't know what nummie first said that CAPS was shouting, but it didn't
take long for the followers to jump on the band wagon and declare it one of
the original sins - because some seem to have trouble reading it??? Weird.

Your real problem, Neo, is your failure to adequately kiss ass before asking
your question....

Oh?! I top posted. Shame. Must be because I didn't want anyone to have to
wade through all that stuff below first.

"Neo Geshel" <go****@geshel.orgwrote in message
news:q2hWh.106189$aG1.36943@pd7urf3no...
Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <go****@geshel.orgwrites:
>Clearly, I haven't been doing much of anything wrong in terms of
cross-posting.

You were off-topic in two of the four groups you posted to.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design
- In original post: "Any and all comments about the *design* would
also be appreciated." On-topic.

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
- I am authoring an XHTML site. In the absence of an XHTML NG, I'd
say that this one is fair game.

alt.html
- see previous.

comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc
- possibly off-topic (a nearly dead NG), but very debatable since
XHTML doesn't have a NG of its own, and I *am* doing something rather
esoteric...

I'd say I was on-topic for three out of the four, at the very least;
with the fourth being strongly debatable.
>I will use whatever works to get people to read the *whole* post
*before* answering.

Being polite works well for that. Much better, in fact, than shouting
at and insulting the people whose attention you're hoping to retain.
I may have been too harsh in shouting it out; but - aside from the
shouting - if you found that paragraph insulting, you seriously need to
grow a thicker skin and actually get out into the real world once in a
while. That first paragraph was a simple request for people to read and
understand the entire post before giving their $0.02 worth, nothing more
or less.

So far, I have yet to see a single post that has understood my original
request (to any degree whatsoever), and provided an appropriate answer.
I'd say that the frustrations that drove me to create that first
"shouting" paragraph are well-founded.
>And why should I go backwards to HTML? XHTML is working just fine for
me, on my own machine.

Because first, it's not backwards. It's still the standard, and XHTML
hasn't yet gotten to the point where it's reliably compatible.

And second, the point is that, however well XHTML may work on your own
machine, there are a *lot* of other machines out there on which it
does not work, and won't in the forseeable future.
HTML is a dead end. It is no longer being extended or enhanced; there
will never be an HTML 5.0. Wikipedia: "HTML 4.01 and ISO/IEC 15445:2000
are the most recent and final versions of HTML."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html)

The future is all about XHTML (and to a greater, long-term extent, XML),
and I intend to be at the head of the line. That is my choice, and so
far I have found plenty of cell phones, handhelds (like the Blackberry)
and other devices that work just fine with XHTML 1.1.
>Fair enough. You've given your opinion. Good-bye.

Oh, so you get to decide when the thread's over now, and who's allowed
to post to it? Who made you King of Usenet?
One of my most important maxims is, "if you have nothing *constructive*
to say, don't say anything at all". While I don't always succeed in
following that maxim to the letter, at least I make the effort. The vast
majority of *his* post, however, was all about ridicule, sarcasm, his
own opinion and ad hominem attacks. Aside from one or two small points,
it was *far* from constructive.

....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).
************************************************** *********************
Apr 22 '07 #28

P: n/a
VK
On Apr 21, 2:04 am, Neo Geshel <got...@geshel.orgwrote:
I am in the process of creating a template for a site. The site will be
*true* XHTML 1.1
XHTML is gone and will never come back. Get some Prozac or some beer
or both and try to move further with your life.

:-) :-|

Note: Since 1999 I tried to get The Idea behind XHTML and I missed it
miserably - due to my narrow mental capabilities of course. OK, so
instead of hidden errors and possibly wrong resulting DOM Tree like in
HTML one will get "Page parsing error" message in XHTML. So kind of
"inevitable punishment" or so... Cool... I'm still missing the factor
preventing anyone to make valid HTML pages on the first place. If the
factor of "inevitable punishment" is so important, just make a program
sending a 1sec 110 V discharge to electrodes on each W3C Validator
error. Fix these electodes on your bo... sensitive part of your body -
and go ahead with the development: regularly validating your pages.
Functionally it is much more superior alternative to XHTML, really -
and fully cross-browser compliant.

"IE problem" is not simply that "IE doesn't support XHTML and Gecko
does". IE has very different HTML and XML models - in many aspects
superior to ones of other rivals. W3C and followers have to catch up
quickly now because all their time reserves were wasted for XHTML
experiments.

First of all, IE XML parser respects and loads external DTDs So all
these
<!DOCTYPE Extremely Utterly Strict XHTMLlines in XML parsing mode
being loaded and searched for extra entities. Gecko browsers are not
capable to use external DTD so they remain what they are intended to
be by W3C model: useless bogus strings at the top of the document to
silently disregard.

The second and maybe the most important difference is the namespace
mechanics. By Microsoft HTML has namespace and may have any amount of
extra namespaces. By W3C HTML doesn't have any namespaces, only XML
does. Unfortunately HTML 5 drafts by WHATWG still follow this W3C non-
sense despite no one of existing UA respects it - you can use
namespace'd DOM methods just fine on both Gecko and Opera. Now when
HTML5 is taken into a serious production this is the first thing to
fix.

Back to your original aim: if you feel that by using XHTML you are
"making the world better" or "defeating Micro$oft" then so shall be
it. People oftenly wasting their lifetime for even more bizarre
projects.

Technically you have to find a way then to forbid to IE to resolve
external entities. I believe XML has attributes and commands to
achieve this. comp.text.xml NG may be of a greater help.

Apr 22 '07 #29

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.