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

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
************************************************** **************************/

JotM <meeuw_01.XXXnospamXXX (AT) planet (DOT) 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 <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

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

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.

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

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