- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:46:43 -0500
Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> How so? > > Well, your article advocates sniffing specific user agents where the one > written by Mark Pilgrim uses the Accept: header which was actually > designed for this... Google, for one, is known for not supporting XHTML > really well. I'm not doing content negotiation here. There's one representation available. It is XHTML. We can send that to most browsers and they'll deal reasonably. Two I know of have problems (IE and Lynx) so we lie to them and tell them it's text/html. I am curious what problems Google has with XHTML. Then they deal. >>> Then of course there are some interoperability issues with XHTML and >>> entities that haven't really been sorted out yet... >> >> Such as? > > Well, since browsers have non-validating XML parsers you actually can't > use entities, but then you can because they have some build in knowledge > for certain DOCTYPEs... However, this is not guaranteed to be cross > browser. What browsers can't handle this? Theoretically, it is completely spec compliant for a browser to notice PUBLIC identifier in the DOCTYPE, use that to resolve entities or do whatever else it needs to do with that DTD, and never actually load the file at the SYSTEM ID. You absolutely can use all defined entities that are available in XHTML 1/HTML 4. Practically, that's exactly what happens in every browser I've tested, but there might be one I've missed somewhere. If you meant that you can't define new entities, then that's essentially correct. That's also true of HTML of course. -- ?Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo at metalab.unc.edu Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 09:46:43 UTC