By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,377 Members | 1,279 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,377 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

IE doesn's display this although it's standard compliant...

P: n/a
Hi folks,

it's me again... since I have learned many things with the help of
you, I have put together an example which is compliant to XHTML 1.0
strict and to CSS 2, but isn't shown at all in IE6 SP1.

Please take a look at:
http://www.omeganet.de/test/test.html

This file uses http://www.omeganet.de/test/styles.css as style sheet.

The correctness of both files was ensured by check with the validators
from w3.org. The file shows up correctly in Mozilla 1.4, but IE6 SP1
doesn't display anything besides the title, and Opera only shows crap.

Could anyone of you help again: What's the code passage which IE
doesn't like, and is it a bug or once more a feature? How can I
correct it?

Thanks again,

Peter
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
Peter Pfannenschmid:
Please take a look at:
http://www.omeganet.de/test/test.html The correctness of both files was ensured by check with the validators
from w3.org. The file shows up correctly in Mozilla 1.4, but IE6 SP1
doesn't display anything besides the title, and Opera only shows crap. Could anyone of you help again: What's the code passage which IE
doesn't like, and is it a bug or once more a feature? How can I
correct it?


The validator does not really say that your page is valid XHTML 1.0
Strict. Instead it says:

This Page Is Valid -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 STRICT//EN!

Normally the message reads like this:

This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!

The reason seams to be that you've written "STRICT" instead of "Strict".

I've no idea if that can be the reason for the display problems. It's
more likely that you've done something strange with your layout table,
the form tags, the empty header, the empty divs, etc. Or the problem
could be the many "option"s.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
it*@omeganet.de (Peter Pfannenschmid) wrote in message news:<65*************************@posting.google.c om>...
but isn't shown at all in IE6 SP1.


Change line 19 to
<script type="text/javascript" src="/jscript/navig.js"></script>
IE seems to have problems when closing script elements with "/>" (a
NET delimiter if I'm not mistaken)
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
On 1 Feb 2004 03:32:57 -0800, it*@omeganet.de (Peter Pfannenschmid)
wrote:
it's me again... since I have learned many things with the help of
you, I have put together an example which is compliant to XHTML 1.0
strict and to CSS 2, but isn't shown at all in IE6 SP1.

Please take a look at:
http://www.omeganet.de/test/test.html
IE6 does not understand XHTML, it doesn't even try to render it unless
you mislabel it as text/html in which case you're just serving it
tag-soup, it then uses a tag-soup parser on it and obviously it
doesn't realise your script is closed.

I would say any browser which did render that would be wrong, and
would also be opening itself up to potential security concerns.
The correctness of both files was ensured by check with the validators
from w3.org. The file shows up correctly in Mozilla 1.4, but IE6 SP1
doesn't display anything besides the title, and Opera only shows crap.


Mozilla is fixing up that tag-soup in what is IMO a bad way.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> wrote in message news:<bv*************@news.t-online.com>...
Peter Pfannenschmid:
Please take a look at:
http://www.omeganet.de/test/test.html

[...] The validator does not really say that your page is valid XHTML 1.0
Strict. Instead it says:

This Page Is Valid -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 STRICT//EN!

Normally the message reads like this:

This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!

The reason seams to be that you've written "STRICT" instead of "Strict".

I've no idea if that can be the reason for the display problems. It's
more likely that you've done something strange with your layout table,
the form tags, the empty header, the empty divs, etc. Or the problem
could be the many "option"s.


I have corrected the DOCTYPE issue as advised - thanks for the tip.
Now the validator tells what it should tell, but IE6 SP1 still does
not show any piece of the page besides the title.

Yours,

Peter
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
it*@omeganet.de (Peter Pfannenschmid) wrote:
> Please take a look at:
> http://www.omeganet.de/test/test.html

I have corrected the DOCTYPE issue as advised - thanks for the tip.
Now the validator tells what it should tell, but IE6 SP1 still does
not show any piece of the page besides the title.


It's the script element.

Change
<script type="text/javascript" src="/jscript/navig.js" />
to
<script type="text/javascript" src="/jscript/navig.js"></script>
and IE and Opera will both render it just fine.

Using <foo /> for anything other than elements that don't have end
tags in HTML (i.e. elements whose content model is not EMPTY) is not
recommended, and you've just discovered why.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Steve Pugh:
> http://www.omeganet.de/test/test.html
It's the script element. Change
<script type="text/javascript" src="/jscript/navig.js" />
to
<script type="text/javascript" src="/jscript/navig.js"></script>
and IE and Opera will both render it just fine. Using <foo /> for anything other than elements that don't have end
tags in HTML (i.e. elements whose content model is not EMPTY) is not
recommended, and you've just discovered why.


I'll just fill in that doing so is not recommended when you're serving
the XHTML as "text/html", targeting old browsers that have no idea what
XHTML is. If you serve XHTML as "application/xhtml+xml" (the way XHTML
should be served) then there is no problem with "<script .../>".

So validity is not enough.

--
Bertilo Wennergren <be******@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, Bertilo Wennergren wrote:
I'll just fill in that doing so is not recommended when you're serving
the XHTML as "text/html", targeting old browsers that have no idea what
XHTML is. If you serve XHTML as "application/xhtml+xml" (the way XHTML
should be served) then there is no problem with "<script .../>".

So validity is not enough.


Appendix C has a lot to answer for, indeed.

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
In article <40***************@news.cis.dfn.de>,
ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) writes:
Mozilla is fixing up that tag-soup in what is IMO a bad way.


That's a bit harsh, innit? Moz's parser is basically XML, and its
handling of HTML is by normalisation-to-XHTML. Like the validator,
it can sniff for XHTML 1.0 doctypes and apply Appendix C rules.
And jumping from Appendix C to a bit of real XML isn't so bad.

--
Nick Kew
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
In article <ld************@webthing.com>,
ni**@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew) wrote:
In article <40***************@news.cis.dfn.de>,
ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) writes:
Mozilla is fixing up that tag-soup in what is IMO a bad way.
That's a bit harsh, innit? Moz's parser is basically XML,


Mozilla's text/html parser is definitely not an XML parser.
and its handling of HTML is by normalisation-to-XHTML.
No, the text/html side uses the HTML DOM.
Like the validator, it can sniff for XHTML 1.0 doctypes
and apply Appendix C rules.
Mozilla sniffs the doctype for layout mode--not soup vs. XML parsing.
text/html is parsed as soup.
And jumping from Appendix C to a bit of real XML isn't so bad.


If it is only a bit XML, it isn't XML.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:24:05 +0000, ni**@hugin.webthing.com (Nick Kew)
wrote:
In article <40***************@news.cis.dfn.de>,
ji*@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) writes:
Mozilla is fixing up that tag-soup in what is IMO a bad way.
That's a bit harsh, innit?


Perhaps, I'm of the opinion any fix up it can do is good.

There was an issue in NN4 whereby it had similar fix-up bad code, and
it managed to execute a script placed on the page to demonstrate a
script not to use which locked up the browser - see
comp.lang.javascript archives a long time ago for me and Danny Goodman
in discussion.

Not explicitly ensuring script is closed is something I feel a bit
dodgy.
Moz's parser is basically XML, and its
handling of HTML is by normalisation-to-XHTML.


I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Jul 20 '05 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.