Re: Site Template - Any Internet Explorer XML Parser errors?

Sherm Pendley wrote:

Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

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).
************************************************** *********************

Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

Sherm Pendley wrote:
Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

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

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).
************************************************** *********************

Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

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

Sherm Pendley wrote:

Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

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).
************************************************** *********************

Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

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

Sherm Pendley wrote:

Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

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).
************************************************** *********************

Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) org> writes:

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

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:59:53 GMT from Neo Geshel <gotcha (AT) geshel (DOT) 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