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

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

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 <bertilow (AT) gmx (DOT) net> <http://www.bertilow.com>

itc (AT) omeganet (DOT) de (Peter Pfannenschmid) wrote in message news:<650936b.0402010332.28cacb29 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...

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)

On 1 Feb 2004 03:32:57 -0800, itc (AT) omeganet (DOT) 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/

Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow (AT) gmx (DOT) net> wrote

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

itc (AT) omeganet (DOT) 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 <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

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 <bertilow (AT) gmx (DOT) net> <http://www.bertilow.com>

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.

In article <401d5c37.16066121 (AT) news (DOT) cis.dfn.de>,
jim (AT) jibbering (DOT) 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

In article <lde0f1-o32.ln1 (AT) webthing (DOT) com>,
nick (AT) hugin (DOT) webthing.com (Nick Kew) wrote:

In article <401d5c37.16066121 (AT) news (DOT) cis.dfn.de>,
jim (AT) jibbering (DOT) 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
hsivonen (AT) iki (DOT) fi
http://iki.fi/hsivonen/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html