By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,445 Members | 1,160 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,445 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Determining whether IE6 renders in Quirks or Standard mode???

P: n/a
Hi there,
I have this web site (www.DrTube.com) which has the following DTD:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
which switches Mozilla to standards compliance mode as I can confirm
myself. How can I check whether IE6 and Opera do so too?
TIA
Regards
Xavier van Unen.
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
35 Replies


P: n/a
Dr.Tube wrote:
Hi there,
I have this web site (www.DrTube.com) which has the following DTD:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
which switches Mozilla to standards compliance mode as I can confirm
myself. How can I check whether IE6 and Opera do so too?
TIA
Regards
Xavier van Unen.


Try entering javascript:alert(document.compatMode) in the URL area.

You should get CSS1Compat if it's in standards mode, or BackCompat if in
quirks.

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Dr.Tube wrote:
Hi there,
I have this web site (www.DrTube.com) which has the following DTD:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
which switches Mozilla to standards compliance mode as I can confirm
myself. How can I check whether IE6 and Opera do so too?


Look up the table on Eric Meyer's website [1]. According to Eric's
table, it should be in standard's compliant mode. I recommend just
using XHTML 1.0 Strict, and it will always be in standard's compliant
mode for every browser.

[1] http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com/bonus/render-mode.html

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.scanners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt <la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners> wrote in
news:YO****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
Dr.Tube wrote:
How can I check whether IE6 and Opera do so too?


I recommend just
using XHTML 1.0 Strict, and it will always be in standard's compliant
mode for every browser.


That's assuming you're sending it as application/xhtml+xml. If you send it
as text/html (which the majority of people do, due to lacking browser
support), quirks mode still exists.

Regards,
Geoff
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Hi Keith,
I have this web site (www.DrTube.com) which has the following DTD:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
which switches Mozilla to standards compliance mode as I can confirm myself. How can I check whether IE6 and Opera do so too?
Try entering javascript:alert(document.compatMode) in the URL area.
You should get CSS1Compat if it's in standards mode, or BackCompat if in quirks.


Whoa, that should have taken some digging in all sorts of MS knowledge
bases... You wouldn't by any chance have a link to a MS knowledge base
or something similar on this subect so that I can read up on this?

Thanx.
Xavier
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Geoff Ball wrote:
That's assuming you're sending it as application/xhtml+xml. If you send it
as text/html (which the majority of people do, due to lacking browser
support), quirks mode still exists.


Well, although it is not parsed as XML when served as text/html, it
is still rendered in standards compliant mode in all modern browsers.
Also, many people serve it as text/html because they either don't have
the ability to set up content negotiation on the server (like my website
at the moment), or they lack the knowledge to do so.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.scanners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Geoff Ball wrote:
That's assuming you're sending it as application/xhtml+xml. If you
send it as text/html (which the majority of people do, due to lacking
browser support), quirks mode still exists.


many people serve it as text/html because they either don't have the
ability to set up content negotiation on the server (like my website at
the moment), or they lack the knowledge to do so.


Then why use xhtml at all? HTML is a better choice for most authors.

--
Brian (reomve ".invalid" to email me)

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
Then why use xhtml at all? HTML is a better choice for most authors.


Currently, there is no major benefit for the client to have XHTML 1.0
Strict over HTML 4.01 Strict when the document only contains HTML
markup. I don't have a problem with someone using HTML 4.01 Strict, as
long as they do it correctly and it validates. However, I choose to,
and recommend others do use XHTML because it forces the very good XML
habbits of always explicitly closing every element, quoting every
attribute value, etc.... Also, using XHTML allows authors to embed
other XML languages such as RDF, MathML, SVG, etc... (which will have a
lot more benefit when UA support for those languages improves)

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.scanners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt <la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners> wrote:
However, I choose to,
and recommend others do use XHTML because it forces the very good XML
habbits of always explicitly closing every element, quoting every
attribute value, etc....


XHTML doesn't force authors to do anything. If you are talking about
validation, you can get error prompts for unclosed non empty elements
with HTML by a minor modification of the DTD.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Spartanicus wrote:
XHTML doesn't force authors to do anything.
XHTML does force you to close elements and quote all attribute
values, specify an XML namespace, and every other XML rule, unless
you're writing invalid markup. Sure, browsers will still render it,
without throwing an error when served as text/html, but try serving
invalid XHTML as application/xhtml+xml to mozilla or any other UA that
correcly supports it, and you'll get an XML well-formedness error message.

If you are talking about validation, you can get error prompts for unclosed non empty elements
with HTML by a minor modification of the DTD.


What's the point? Even if that were possible, XHTML already has the
DTD and XML rules specified to ensure that.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.scanners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt <la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners> wrote:
If you are talking about
validation, you can get error prompts for unclosed non empty elements
with HTML by a minor modification of the DTD.
What's the point?


Not relying on UA's error correcting to render invalid code for one.
Even if that were possible


It is, several people here do just that, myself included.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
"Lachlan Hunt" <la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners> a écrit
dans le message de news:5v****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au
XHTML does force you to close elements and quote all attribute
values, specify an XML namespace, and every other XML rule, unless
you're writing invalid markup. Sure, browsers will still render it,
without throwing an error when served as text/html, but try serving
invalid XHTML as application/xhtml+xml to mozilla or any other UA that
correcly supports it, and you'll get an XML well-formedness error
message.


Just 2 questions :
- will a non wellformed xhtml document will be throw by the browser if it is
served as text/html ? Admitting this document is xhtml 1.0 and respect the
appendix C of the recommendation ?
- does well-formed is equivalent of xhtml valid ?

Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Pierre Goiffon wrote:
- will a non wellformed xhtml document will be throw by the browser if it is
served as text/html ? Admitting this document is xhtml 1.0 and respect the
appendix C of the recommendation ?
XHTML media types [1] states:

XHTML documents served as 'text/html' will not be
processed as XML [XML10], e.g. well-formedness
errors may not be detected by user agents.

And current UAs, AFAIK, only give well-formedness errors when served
as application/xhtml+xml, or other XML media type.
- does well-formed is equivalent of xhtml valid ?


Not necessarily. Well-formedness just means that the XML syntax
rules have been followed, not that the document is valid according to
the DTD or Schema.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml...801/#text-html

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.scanners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Spartanicus wrote:
Lachlan Hunt <la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners> wrote:

If you are talking about
validation, you can get error prompts for unclosed non empty elements
with HTML by a minor modification of the DTD.


What's the point?


Not relying on UA's error correcting to render invalid code for one.


I didn't mean what's the point of validating, since all documents
should be valid [1]. I meant what's the point of modifying the HTML 4
DTD just to get warnings about unclosed non-empty elements, when using
XHTML will already do that, and more.
[1] Note: It would have been better if UAs were not built with error
correcting code, and just gave error messages instead, because then
authors would care about more than just pixel perfect rendering.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.scanners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Also, using XHTML allows authors to embed
other XML languages such as RDF, MathML, SVG, etc... (which will have a
lot more benefit when UA support for those languages improves)


Can you point me at any docs on how one does this? Do any UAs available
for Windows in binary form currently support this?

I could make use of this atm for some reports which currently need to
include sixty odd external SVG files. In this case it wouldn't matter
too much if I had to dictate the browser required. Thanks.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Brian wrote:
why use xhtml at all? HTML is a better choice for most authors.
there is no major benefit for the client to have XHTML 1.0 Strict
over HTML 4.01 Strict when the document only contains HTML markup.


Exactly. But there are some drawbacks. So don't tell people to use it,
at least without telling users the dangers of xhtml.
I don't have a problem with someone using HTML 4.01 Strict, as long
as they do it correctly and it validates.
Neither do I have a problem with someone using XHTML. However, MSIE
does seem to have a problem with it. Hence, unless there is a good
reason to use it -- and the author understands the hazards -- the best
choice is HTML 4.01/strict.
recommend others do use XHTML because it forces the very good XML
habbits of always explicitly closing every element, quoting every
attribute value, etc....


This doesn't seem like a terribly strong reason. If you want to quote
attributes, then quote them. Why do you need a validator to yell at
you to do it? It reminds me of American politicians who wanted to pass
an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require them to pass
a balanced budget. Why not just pass a balanced budget?

In any case, these benefits are lost if you server xhtml as text/html,
which you must do if you want MSIE to do anything useful with it. The
other option is to serve two different versions, one html and one
xhtml/xml. At this point, things have become more complicated then
they need to be, since one html version suffices for most documents.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
/Dr.Tube/:
Try entering javascript:alert(document.compatMode) in the URL area.
You should get CSS1Compat if it's in standards mode, or BackCompat


if in
quirks.


Whoa, that should have taken some digging in all sorts of MS knowledge
bases... You wouldn't by any chance have a link to a MS knowledge base
or something similar on this subect so that I can read up on this?


It is under the "Web Development" section of the MSDN Library
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/>. You may bookmark this:

"HTML and DHTML Reference"
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/dhtml_reference_entry.asp>

Here's the link for the 'compatMode' property:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a...compatmode.asp

--
Stanimir

P.S.: Please, use the OE-QuoteFix
<http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/> so there would
be no need for the people responding you to fix your messy quotes.
Thank you.
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt <la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners> wrote:
What's the point?


Not relying on UA's error correcting to render invalid code for one.


I didn't mean what's the point of validating, since all documents
should be valid [1]. I meant what's the point of modifying the HTML 4
DTD just to get warnings about unclosed non-empty elements, when using
XHTML will already do that, and more.


By feeding UAs XHTML code whilst telling them it's HTML via the mime
type a UA will parse it as HTML, you feed them invalid HTML and you are
thus relying on UA's error correcting mechanisms to mask the errors.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a


Lachlan Hunt wrote:

I recommend just
using XHTML 1.0 Strict, and it will always be in standard's compliant
mode for every browser.


Why is that? IE5 and IE5.5 for instance on Windows do not even have a
standards compliant mode and while IE6 has one it suffices to serve an
XHTML document with an XML declaration (e.g <?xml version="1.0"
encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>) to have IE6 in quirks mode.

--

Martin Honnen
http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
"Lachlan Hunt" <la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners> a écrit
dans le message de news:Tb*****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au
XHTML media types [1] states: (...) http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml...801/#text-html


Thinks a lot, I didn't know that document and it's a pretty good reading !
- does well-formed is equivalent of xhtml valid ?


Not necessarily. Well-formedness just means that the XML syntax
rules have been followed, not that the document is valid according to
the DTD or Schema.


Oh, interesting point. So knowing that, I don't understand at all why it
would be an advantage of xhtml comparing to html that browser throw non
well-formed documents ? A document written nowdays should always be valid
according to his doctype, I mean. If it's valid it's well written, so in the
xml way it's well-formed, and as for html.

Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Martin Honnen wrote:


Lachlan Hunt wrote:

I recommend just using XHTML 1.0 Strict, and it will always be in
standard's compliant mode for every browser.

Why is that? IE5 and IE5.5 for instance on Windows do not even have a
standards compliant mode and while IE6 has one it suffices to serve an
XHTML document with an XML declaration (e.g <?xml version="1.0"
encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>) to have IE6 in quirks mode.


My mistake, I neglected to write ...for every *modern* browser above.
IE 5 and 5.5 are obsolete, and IE 6 isn't far off. I'm well aware
that IE6 doesn't actually have any mode that could be considered
standards compliant — it simply has quirks, and *more quirks* mode. The
only thing keeping it alive is because it comes with the operating
system, and the average user around the world wouldn't have a clue about
how to install another; (or when it comes to system administrators,
they're too lazy and incompetent to know any better, and that they
should remove all traces of IE from their network.)

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.scanners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I didn't mean what's the point of validating, since all documents
should be valid. I meant what's the point of modifying the HTML 4
DTD just to get warnings about unclosed non-empty elements, when using
XHTML will already do that, and more.


Okay, I'll bite. What's the "and more"? By definition XHTML(tm) cannot
possibly do anything more than HTML can do. The sole reason for the
whole XHTML(tm) exercise was to strengthen W3C's commercial position
by replacing the term HTML with one which the W3C could assert was a
trademark.
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Martin Honnen wrote:

Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I recommend just using XHTML 1.0 Strict, and it will always be in
standard's compliant mode for every browser.
Why is that? IE5 and IE5.5 for instance on Windows do not even have a
standards compliant mode and while IE6 has one it suffices to serve an
XHTML document with an XML declaration (e.g <?xml version="1.0"
encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>) to have IE6 in quirks mode.


My mistake, I neglected to write ...for every *modern* browser above.


Sounds like: "When the P.M. said, 'By 1990, no Australian child will
live in poverty,' what he clearly meant was, 'No Australian child will
*need to* live in poverty.'"

It's okay, since no-one *needs* to use the obsolete IE5, your
statement was not in error. You're in good (neglectful) company.

IE 5 and 5.5 are obsolete, and IE 6 isn't far off. I'm well aware
that IE6 doesn't actually have any mode that could be considered
standards compliant — it simply has quirks, and *more quirks* mode. The
only thing keeping it alive is because it comes with the operating
system, and the average user around the world wouldn't have a clue about
how to install another;


Those pesky average users again. What is keeping IE alive is its
superior features for use with non-latin scripts (as used by most of
the world's people). Still, the reality is there is no reason for any
English speaking person to ever use IE.

--
Internet Explorer - the browser more terrorists prefer.
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I didn't mean what's the point of validating, since all documents
should be valid. I meant what's the point of modifying the HTML 4
DTD just to get warnings about unclosed non-empty elements, when using
XHTML will already do that, and more.

Okay, I'll bite. What's the "and more"? By definition XHTML(tm) cannot
possibly do anything more than HTML can do.


I thought I made myself clear with what I wrote above, but anyway,
That's right, XHTML can't do more than HTML with regard to structure or
semantics, however I meant that XHTML imposes the additional rules of
XML which HTML doesn't. For example, ensuring every attribute value is
quoted; an xmlns must be specified; there are no optional tags [1] (eg.
<head> and <body> cannot be omitted, as they could in HTML), etc...
(read the XML and XHTML recommendations for more).
The sole reason for the whole XHTML(tm) exercise was to strengthen W3C's commercial position
by replacing the term HTML with one which the W3C could assert was a
trademark.


The reason for migrating to XHTML had nothing to do with marketing to
improve W3C's commercial position, it had to do with making a markup
language that was compatible with existing and future XML user agents,
as well as being backwards compatible with existing HTML UAs. XHTML2,
on the other hand, will *not* be backwards compatible with existing HTML
UAs, however it will be completely compatible with XML UAs.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
la**********@lachy.id.au.update.virus.scanners

Remove .update.virus.scanners to email me,
NO SPAM and NO VIRUSES!!!
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Fri, 3 Jun 2004, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
Those pesky average users again. What is keeping IE alive is its
superior features for use with non-latin scripts


Could you be more specific? Mozilla is objectively better in the tests
that I am aware of.
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
On 3 Jun 2004, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
Those pesky average users again. What is keeping IE alive is its
superior features for use with non-latin scripts (as used by most of
the world's people). Still, the reality is there is no reason for any
English speaking person to ever use IE.


Even the latest MS Windows versions (XP, 2003) with _default_ setup
for Internet Explorer fail to display the special Urdu letters in
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/arabic.html6>
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/arabic.win>
although support for Urdu was introduced with Windows 2000.

Internet Explorer requires special markup to display extended
Arabic characters:
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/pashto-alphabet.html>
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/sindhi-alphabet.html>
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/urdu-alphabet.html>
Without this markup, IE6 is clueless.

Likewise, IE6 in this default setup fails to display *most* symbols
from <http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/unicode/unidata21.html>

Mozilla/Netscape on the other hand works fine!

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:

[snip]
Those pesky average users again. What is keeping IE alive is its
superior features for use with non-latin scripts (as used by most of
the world's people). Still, the reality is there is no reason for any
English speaking person to ever use IE.


Please excuse my ignorance, but what are those superior features?

= Eric

Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
Keith Bowes wrote:
....
Try entering javascript:alert(document.compatMode) in the URL area.

You should get CSS1Compat if it's in standards mode, or BackCompat if in
quirks.

Big fun.
Try http://meeuw.zeepost.nl/ie_quirks.htm
Standards compliant mode in NN7, showing "BackCompat" in IE6.
It is a XHTML 1.1 document validating just OK with W3C by the way.

Cheers

--

/************************************************** **************************
JotM aka Jaap van der Heide
Remove ".XXXnospamXXX" for a valid return address
Please reply to a news message in the group where the message was posted
************************************************** **************************/

Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
JotM <me*******************@planet.nl> wrote:
Keith Bowes wrote:

Try entering javascript:alert(document.compatMode) in the URL area.
You should get CSS1Compat if it's in standards mode, or BackCompat if in
quirks.
Big fun.
Try http://meeuw.zeepost.nl/ie_quirks.htm
Standards compliant mode in NN7, showing "BackCompat" in IE6.


Of course, well known bug in IE - it only looks for the doctype on teh
first non-blank line of the code, so the XML declaration automatically
pushes it into quirks mode.
It is a XHTML 1.1 document validating just OK with W3C by the way.


Except that you've served it as text/html ...

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 #29

P: n/a
Steve Pugh wrote:

....
It is a XHTML 1.1 document validating just OK with W3C by the way.

Except that you've served it as text/html ...


Yup. But with a free dial-up account I can't really control the server
of my provider. I tried it with a meta header stating it should be <meta
http-equiv="content-type" content="application/xml+xhtml; charset=utf-8"
/>. But as said, I can't control the type put into the http header served.

Jaap

Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, JotM wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:

...
It is a XHTML 1.1 document validating just OK with W3C by the way.
Except that you've served it as text/html ...


Yup.


Then it seems you could be violating the W3C trademark by describing
it as XHTML/1.1. XHTML is a W3C trademark and they get to set the
rules: the concession to send XHTML out as text/html ceases after
XHTML/1.0 appendix C.
But with a free dial-up account I can't really control the server
of my provider.
I'll reserve judgment on that. Many of the folks I've advised before
in that situation had never actually tried creating a .htaccess file,
and were surprised (in some cases their service provider was also
surprised, which says something about service providers) to find that
it worked.
I tried it with a meta header stating it should be <meta
http-equiv="content-type" content="application/xml+xhtml; charset=utf-8"
/>.
If you can say that with a straight face, then you don't understand
XHTML. The use of "meta" for anything like such a purpose is
something that ended with the transition from HTML to XHTML; it's
limited to influencing the "charset" (in cases where the server fails
to provide one - which has been rated as a potentially dangerous
practice ever since CERT CA-2000-02) - it's far too late at that point
to renegotiate the MIME type of the entity - and it appears in
XHTML/1.0 Appendix C solely for the purpose of compatibility with HTML
client agents: as far as XHTML is concerned it's just noise.
But as said, I can't control the type put into the http header
served.


Then you're not ready to use XHTML/1.1. And, frankly, many of those
who understand what XHTML/1.1 is seem to have little use for it
anyway.

best advice I can offer, I'm afraid.
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On 3 Jun 2004, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:


Even the latest MS Windows versions (XP, 2003) with _default_ setup
for Internet Explorer fail to display the special Urdu letters in
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/arabic.html6>
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/arabic.win>
although support for Urdu was introduced with Windows 2000.

Internet Explorer requires special markup to display extended
Arabic characters:
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/pashto-alphabet.html>
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/sindhi-alphabet.html>
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/urdu-alphabet.html>
Without this markup, IE6 is clueless.

Likewise, IE6 in this default setup fails to display *most* symbols
from <http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/unicode/unidata21.html>

Mozilla/Netscape on the other hand works fine!

I can attest to that. I just pointed Moz 1.6 at:

http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...unidata21.html

and the page rendered perfectly. I don't have any special add ons or
plug ins. That's straight out of the box. Just for fun, I then
pointed Opera 7.23 (again, plain vanilla) at the same site - perfect.

It's true, at the moment M$ enjoys wide acceptance. But I would sell
my shares short, if I had any ;->

H
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, JotM wrote:

....
But with a free dial-up account I can't really control the server
of my provider.

I'll reserve judgment on that. Many of the folks I've advised before
in that situation had never actually tried creating a .htaccess file,
and were surprised (in some cases their service provider was also
surprised, which says something about service providers) to find that
it worked.


Well Alan,
I tried placing a .htaccess file in "my" root as well as in "my" www
folder, but:
First I made a file named "htaccess" containing a line saying "AddType
application/xml+xhtml .xhtml";
FTP'ed it to the locations mentioned;
tried to rename it to ".htaccess" and got an error-message stating
"550 Prohibited file name: .htaccess".

I am a mechanical guy, you know, nuts and bolts. I am lost here.

As for trying to create XHTML1.1:
The last time I looked into HTML (into the code I mean; I have produced
IE readable pages at work right from MS Word, please don't flame me for
that) I used notepad to create pages that I browsed with mozaic. So you
could say I missed some years. As I considdered it could be fun to code
some pages again, I bought a Visual Quickstart Guide on HTML and started
of. There's nothing in there about the type served for XHTML. (there is
a similar example to what I tried and described above for preparing a
server to serve wml, but as said, I get stuck on that path)
Learning as I am doing. And perhaps, it would be wiser to switch to
HTML4. If that's what I pick up doing and reading, I will.

Regards,

Jaap

Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
JotM wrote:
Learning as I am doing.


Here's another funny little thing:
I just found out that if I rename my page to
"http://meeuw.zeepost.nl/ie_quirks.xhtml" it is served as
application/xhtml+xml . No ".htaccess" file needed there.
Except for the thing IE6 as I have it installed doesn't recognize the
filetype and isn't able to properly show the page in the first place.

Cheers,

Jaap

Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Helen C wrote:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...unidata21.html

and the page rendered perfectly. I don't have any special add ons or
plug ins. That's straight out of the box. Just for fun, I then
pointed Opera 7.23 (again, plain vanilla) at the same site - perfect.


Opera 7.50 on Solaris 9 shows *not a single* of those characters.
Opera on Mac OS and Solaris has always been a complete failure
in internationalization.

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004, Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Helen C wrote:
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...unidata21.html


Opera 7.50 on Solaris 9 shows *not a single* of those characters.
Opera on Mac OS and Solaris has always been a complete failure
in internationalization.


On the other hand, I tried it on Redhat 9 with its Mozilla version of
1.4.2, and there wasn't a single character on that page that it didn't
render.

Opera 7.01 on Win/2000 didn't manage to do quite so well, but it
still managed a fair selection.

What can I say? There are some who still have an interworking
specification to meet. What was the date on RFC2070? Its promoter
got something off the ground that worked with Windows/3.1 - I saw it
working for myself. That must have been something like a decade back.
Jul 20 '05 #36

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.