W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: handling fallback content for still images

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 07:25:52 -0500
Message-Id: <ECEEE9E2-B19B-483D-A754-C051148282FD@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
To: scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>

Hi Scott,


On Jul 8, 2007, at 10:54 PM, scott lewis wrote:
> Indeed, my file had an extension of ".html". A little more testing  
> reveals that Firefox will reject a document served as application/ 
> xhtml+xml if it's name ends in .html, but will accept it if the  
> extension is .xml. FF renders the .xml file without a <tbody>, as  
> you say. And, conversely while IE will render the .html, it refuses  
> to render the .xml file. Safari and Opera rendered both extensions.
>
>  - Opera 9
>     - .html no <tbody>
>     - .xml no <tbody>
>  - Firefox 2
>     - .html Will not render
>     - .xml no <tbody>
>  - IE 7
>     - .html inserted <tbody>
>     - .xml Will not render
> - Safari 3
>     - .html inserted <tbody>
>     - .xml inserted <tbody>
>
> Identical documents, identical mimetypes, different extensions.
>
> I'm not convinced that we can dismiss IE7 since the path of least  
> resistance and "cargo cult conformance" (not to mention habit) lead  
> to XHTML in .html files, and while those files aren't parsed by a  
> strict XML parser, they still render in IE7.

I'm not sure exactly how you're accomplishing this, but the fact that  
you say Firefox refuses to process, this tells me you must have  
discovered something interesting. I think I asked this before, but  
are you performing a file-by-file MIME type setting on your server?  
Otherwise how else are you altering your filename extensions and  
still serving the same MIME type (or I guess this could be  
accomplished incrementally one test at a time). Anyway, my guess is  
(and this I think is an interesting discovery if its true) that IE is  
ignoring the server MIME type and using the filename extension  
instead. Firefox too may be doing something like that which would  
cause it to fail (because it doesn't match its preconceived notions  
of what a filename extension an XML file should have).

I'm curious to hear some more details.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 12:26:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:46 UTC