On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:56:43 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Steven Pemberton wrote: >> ... >> Actually I never have any problems getting XHTML into IE to speak of, >> and don't really understand the fuss. Even using application/xhtml+xml >> works (see http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-ruby-markup-1.html >> as an example). I know that there are some differences, but in the vast >> majority of deployed pages, with a little forethought you're never >> going to have any major issues. >> ... > > This one caught me by surprise :-) Yes, me too. > Digging deeper shows that you rely on IE's content-sniffing kicking in. > This seems to depend on the extension being "html" (it won't work with > "xhtml", for example). So IE is interpreting the page as HTML, not XHTML. Not me. That's someone else's page. I, like most people, tend to deliver XHTML to IE as text/html in most cases. But the point is that the authoring is XHTML, and the user experience at the end is correct. That's all I am worried about. > BTW: the page claims: > > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> Yes, presumably a mistake. It's a real pain that content-encoding is enmeshed with mime type in HTML. Lucky that HTTP headers are authoritative! Best wishes, StevenReceived on Tuesday, 30 September 2008 12:43:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:58 UTC