Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Julian Reschke" <email@example.com>,"J. David Eisenberg" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Browser support of XML standards (WAS: RE:Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to...)
- From: "Manos Batsis" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 12:56:46 +0300
- Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AcIn469nASon2zJgQvqZBtHbCQRZAQAD0JLA
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Browser support of XML standards (WAS: RE:Slightly off, but... was: XUL appears to...)
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:email@example.com]
> > * The plug-ins have to be specific for each browser (for
> example activeX
> > controls in IE). This is the main reason I dislike IE's XML support;
> > it's not actually in the browser but on a separate dll used
> as activeX
> > (msxml).
> Why does that matter?
Because IE behaves quite differently based on whether it anticipates the
document as XML or HTML.
Try to use <html:script> in XML; no use.
Try placing your script in a CDATA section in XHTML and errors occur.
Try feeding it with XHTML (using *any* file extension but xml) and it
will behave as if it where HTML; you loose much of the XML specific
For example, try viewing an XHTML document (again, using *any* file
extension but xml) that it contains a stylesheet PI. It won't
transform in IE.
Using the same document and Internet Explorer XML Tools , it will
report "Not XML Document" if you try to validate it or view the XSLT
Finally, both IE and Mozilla will not even try to use the DOCTYPE with
the exception of standards/non-standards rendering mode...
Just don't expect the ability to freely mix xhtml+xforms+svg+smil+etc
for the next five years in any mainstream browser with Mozilla being the
only possible exception.