Re: Why this error message in IE7?

Rhino wrote:

From: Rhino <no.offline.contact.please@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:10:26 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:48:27 +0000 (UTC)

There's something seriously wrong with your dates... 9th of March? Did
you mess up your Windows EDT change this morning?

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
Rhino wrote:
What am I missing?

The fact that my file with the .xhtml extension was served as
application/xhtml+xml. We've been telling you that IE can't handle
that. And since half your visitors will be using IE, why do you
want to give them a page that "offers to download" it.
If you want to continue to argue about using XHTML and
application/xhtml+xml, then I am finished trying to convince you
that is not a wise idea. Unless of course, you don't care to lose
half your visitors.

No, I don't want to lose half my visitors.

I'm not trying to argue, just to understand, although I can imagine
that it seems like I'm arguing.

It seems like it.

<snips>
so I'm just trying to understand why my pages display perfectly even
though I'm using the XHTML doctype, as long as I use a file extension
of .html instead of .shtml. (And they display perfectly in everything
but IE if I stay with XHTML doctype and use an .shtml extension.)
That seems to contradict the warnings I'm getting from everyone about
why XHTML is the wrong way to go.

Once more: the file extension means nothing to how your server is
serving the file. The XHTML test page of mine that your IE 'offered to
download' has a ".php" extension. And it wouldn't matter if I changed it
to .shtml, .xhtml, .html, or maybe even .poop

Also, just for curiousity, I went to a few websites and glanced at what
doctype they were using. I tried csszengarden.com, wikipedia.org, msn.ca,
and microsoft.com, all of which are very heavily used sites or, in the case
of csszengarden, a site that is presumably developed by web design purists.
Much to my surprise, all of them were using XHTML, either transitional or
strict.The only one I found that was still HTML 4.01 Strict was yahoo.com.
The web designers at Microsoft, Wikipedia, MSN and csszengarden don't seem
to be worrying about losing half their customers. In fact, I was able to go
to their sites in IE7 and didn't have a problem.

You still aren't realizing that those pseudo-"XHTML" sites are not
serving XHTML correcly as application/xhtml+xml. What part of that is so
hard for you to grasp?

" .. then I am finished trying to convince you .."

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why this error message in IE7?
    ... though I'm using the XHTML doctype, as long as I use a file extension ... of .html instead of .shtml. ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)
  • Re: URL validation
    ... served as XHTML, ... is served as text/html. ... What extension? ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)
  • Re: Why this error message in IE7?
    ... My file extension ".xhtml" was only to differentiate that it was XHTML ... out why the advice didn't match my experience. ... I'm using the XHTML doctype, as long as I use a file extension of .html ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)
  • Re: Safari inadequate?
    ... Firefox will all use their XHTML parser, ... Safari throws an error and only renders the page up to the mismatch (as ... If I then simply change the extension to .html there are no ... or the meta tag, it will be using file system metadata or an extension. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: conflict between mime type and documet type
    ... You must define the content-type in the HTTP header. ... "Specifically of interest is that XHTML 1.1 SHOULD NOT be served as ... I thought my use of the term "extension" was conventional, ... Apparely the server can't serve the image. ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)