Re: The xhtml:onkeypress architecture

Yep, it was IE's bogus content sniffing apparently, though it's not 
clear why some apparently identical browsers operated differently.

Now fixed.

Thanks Misha.

Steven

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> Jim Ley wrote:
>> On 2/14/06, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
>>> Misha Wolf wrote:
>>>  > I can't view this spec using IE 6 !
>>>
>>> I can, so the problem is at your end :-)
>>
>> How can you be so confident that it's not your installation of IE that
>> is the broken one?
> 
> Spot the smiley, Jim. I asked Misha for more details.
> 
> I'm currently in deep discussions with several people simultaneously 
> spread over the world trying to track this down.
> 
>>> It could be that you are sending application/xhtml+xml in the accept
>>> headers, and so being sent that version, which IE cannot process.
>>
>> Er.
>> $ wget --header="Accept:application/xhtml+xml"
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/xhtml-modularization
>> HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 406 Not Acceptable
>>
>> So it's unlikely that is the issue...
> 
> Quite.
> 
>> Much more likely is the fact that the rendering is just broken, 
>> possibly you want to take note of Appendix C of XHTML 1.0, as it
>> specifically highlights the problem many of us are having.
>>
>> Better would be of course to simply use a HTML version that doesn't
>> have such arcane "rules" to actually allowed to be served as
>> text/html.
>>
>> It also directly touches on the confliction in XHTML 1.0 Appendix C.
>> of C.1 and C.14, you might want to ask the HTML Working Group how the
>> issue against that conflict is coming along, it's likely relevant to
>> you here too.
> 
> At the moment we have apparently identical versions of IE giving 
> different results on different machines, so we are still looking it to 
> what could be causing some people to be able to see it, and others not to.
> 
> It's not being served as XML, so C14 shouldn't be relevant here, but it 
> may be IE's bogus sniffing that is doing the damage.
> 
> Thanks for your help Jim.
> 
> Steven
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2006 16:56:32 UTC