Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
gentoo docs not valid xml?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mark_lybarger
Guru
Guru


Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:32 pm    Post subject: gentoo docs not valid xml? Reply with quote

i'm curious why it seems the gentoo docs are not valid xml, yet they're file extensions are .xml? for instance, here's a snipet from one document:

Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<link title="new" rel="stylesheet" href="/css/main.css?d=20051010" type="text/css">
<link REL="shortcut icon" HREF="http://www.gentoo.org/favicon.ico" TYPE="image/x-icon">
<title>Gentoo Linux Documentation
--
  Gentoo udev Guide</title>
</head>


and here's another:

Code:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<link title="new" rel="stylesheet" href="/css/main.css?d=20051010" type="text/css">
<link REL="shortcut icon" HREF="http://www.gentoo.org/favicon.ico" TYPE="image/x-icon">
<title>Gentoo Linux Documentation
--
  Gentoo Linux Prelink Guide</title>
</head>


i'm not quite up to the details on the doctype standards and file naming standards, but most editors treat .xml files as xml. for instance, if i download these document files and try to open them with konqueror, it complains about illformed xml. same deal with mozilla. if i copy the file so that it has a .html extension, then the browser can render it pretty good. it looks slightly different than online viewing, but it's readable nonetheless.

so, back to my question, why do the docs have a .xml extension when they're not xml documents? any insights would be most appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
codergeek42
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 5142
Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Internally the documents are stored as XML. (try adding ?passthru=1 to the URL to see the XML code). They are rendered to HTML and other forums on-demand, to my understanding. Hope that helps.
_________________
~~ Peter: Brony, GNU/Linux geek, caffeine addict, and Free Software advocate.
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ctenet
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 10 Aug 2003
Posts: 156
Location: New York, USA

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, the doctype is "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN", which is definetely not XML (although I don't see why the site doesn't use XHTML); don't trust extensions!
that's an interesting bit about "passthru"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16104
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moved from Other Things Gentoo
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
omp
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 10 Sep 2005
Posts: 1018
Location: Glendale, California

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ctenet wrote:
yeah, the doctype is "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN", which is definetely not XML (although I don't see why the site doesn't use XHTML)
The redesigned site will use XHTML.

http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml wrote:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">

_________________
meow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
codergeek42
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 5142
Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sweet. 8)
_________________
~~ Peter: Brony, GNU/Linux geek, caffeine addict, and Free Software advocate.
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sven Vermeulen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 29 Aug 2002
Posts: 1345
Location: Mechelen, Belgium

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed; the Gentoo documents are stored in CVS as XML files; the web servers parse the XML to HTML (and in the future, XHTML) based on the XSLT technology.
_________________
Please add "[solved]" to the initial topic title when it is solved. TIA.
Linux Sea (PDF), an online e-book on Gentoo Linux
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agilo
n00b
n00b


Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Posts: 38
Location: The Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

omp wrote:
ctenet wrote:
yeah, the doctype is "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN", which is definetely not XML (although I don't see why the site doesn't use XHTML)
The redesigned site will use XHTML.

http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml wrote:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">


XHTML 1.1 is a bad idea unless a proper method for a fallback is given (since not all browsers support application/xhtml-xml).

I'll wonder how valid the end-result will be, really.
Lots of sites go from tagsoup HTML to XHTML and claim it valid (while in fact it being far from the truth).
I give them props for trying, but I suggest them to actually read the XHTML specifications before migrating (which hardly anyone does, for some reason).

Oh well, I hope gentoo.org will be different. :)
_________________
- Agilo (Alessandro Lo-Presti)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
omp
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 10 Sep 2005
Posts: 1018
Location: Glendale, California

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agilo, the new site was made by someone who has quite a lot of experience, so my guess is that it would be fine.
_________________
meow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark_lybarger
Guru
Guru


Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
Indeed; the Gentoo documents are stored in CVS as XML files; the web servers parse the XML to HTML (and in the future, XHTML) based on the XSLT technology.


if the web server is the one doing the xslt conversion to create a html document from xml content, it just seems that the resultant item viewed on the client should have a .html extension to better match the document type.

as i've said, many editors and browsers will try to render the documents differently based on the extension. maybe there are some http headers being sent via the web server that overrides the default rendering for that file extension. regardless, it makes it tricky to view the docs offline. i'm currently connected via a cell phone modem that gets 14.4k connection, and most downloads seem to go around 1.48K/s.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Agilo
n00b
n00b


Joined: 01 Jan 2004
Posts: 38
Location: The Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

omp wrote:
Agilo, the new site was made by someone who has quite a lot of experience, so my guess is that it would be fine.


I hope so, because currently it's as invalid as can be..
_________________
- Agilo (Alessandro Lo-Presti)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neysx
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 795

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agilo wrote:
omp wrote:
Agilo, the new site was made by someone who has quite a lot of experience, so my guess is that it would be fine.

I hope so, because currently it's as invalid as can be..
No, it's not.
We currently deliver valid transitional html 4.01. You're only assuming that you get an xml file file because the url ends with .xml and you assume wrong. You don't get some php code when you visit http://agilo.acjs.net/alessandro.php do you?
No matter what the wwwredesign guys choose to send, it will have to be valid, be it html 4.01 or xhtml 1.x and it will not be the xml source file. If you're looking for the actual xml source file, use the ?passthru=1 trick mentioned above, get a tarball or visit our viewcvs.
If you want to store the html files locally, man wget will tell you how to rename files so that html files end with .html

hth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
curtis119
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2159
Location: Toledo, OH, USA, North America, Earth, SOL System, Milky Way, The Universe, The Cosmos, and Beyond.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agilo wrote:
omp wrote:
ctenet wrote:
yeah, the doctype is "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN", which is definetely not XML (although I don't see why the site doesn't use XHTML)
The redesigned site will use XHTML.

http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml wrote:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">


XHTML 1.1 is a bad idea unless a proper method for a fallback is given (since not all browsers support application/xhtml-xml).

I'll wonder how valid the end-result will be, really.
Lots of sites go from tagsoup HTML to XHTML and claim it valid (while in fact it being far from the truth).
I give them props for trying, but I suggest them to actually read the XHTML specifications before migrating (which hardly anyone does, for some reason).

Oh well, I hope gentoo.org will be different. :)


Actually I'm right in the middle of reading the complete xhtml-1.1 specification (that's why production on the redesign has ground to a halt recently). I haven't decided if I'm going to use it or not. I may go down to xhtml-1.0 depending on how hard it is to make it work. I do have the wwwredesign.gentoo.org site serving xhtml-1.1 at the moment but only for testing purposes and NONE of the pages are compliant yet.

As to the extension .xml:
webbrowsers determine the content type by the tag at the top of every page and not by the extension as neysx already said.


omp wrote:
Agilo, the new site was made by someone who has quite a lot of experience, so my guess is that it would be fine.


Thanks for the vote of confidence! :P
_________________
Please read the Forum Guidelines.
* | www.gayroughnecks.com | *
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
curtis119
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2159
Location: Toledo, OH, USA, North America, Earth, SOL System, Milky Way, The Universe, The Cosmos, and Beyond.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mark_lybarger wrote:

if the web server is the one doing the xslt conversion to create a html document from xml content, it just seems that the resultant item viewed on the client should have a .html extension to better match the document type.

as i've said, many editors and browsers will try to render the documents differently based on the extension. maybe there are some http headers being sent via the web server that overrides the default rendering for that file extension. regardless, it makes it tricky to view the docs offline. i'm currently connected via a cell phone modem that gets 14.4k connection, and most downloads seem to go around 1.48K/s.


Just save the page and then change the extension to .html and ALL browsers will open it correctly. If you want the css to be applied just save the css file locally and then change the path to it inside the .html file.
_________________
Please read the Forum Guidelines.
* | www.gayroughnecks.com | *
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theMerge
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 158
Location: Little Elm, TX

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The new site looks good. Not exactly on topic, but worth saying.
_________________
[Insert favorite Ghandi quote here]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark_lybarger
Guru
Guru


Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

neysx wrote:
You're only assuming that you get an xml file file because the url ends with .xml and you assume wrong. You don't get some php code when you visit http://agilo.acjs.net/alessandro.php do you?
No matter what the wwwredesign guys choose to send, it will have to be valid, be it html 4.01 or xhtml 1.x and it will not be the xml source file. If you're looking for the actual xml source file, use the ?passthru=1 trick mentioned above, get a tarball or visit our viewcvs.
If you want to store the html files locally, man wget will tell you how to rename files so that html files end with .html

hth


thanks for the tip on getting a tarball/cvs. i'd be interested in docs on then how to render the docs. i'm after a way to have all the gentoo docs available offline, and there doesn't seem to be an ebuild that i could find.

no, i don't get a php source code file when i wget http://agilo.acjs.net/alessandro.php, but xml files are different. browsers treat them differently. it seems that they can't or don't tell a file's content by the content type or existent of an xml declaration. thus, i think that delivering anything with a .xml extension should be well formed and valid xml. if the content inside the document is truely html, or xhtml transitional (some tags don't have end tags), then i think the document should be delivered with a html extension. it just plays nice with the way browsers currently work.

i also think that using wget to rename the output file is a hack. the "getter" must know the item is really xhtml transitional (or html) and know to name the file accordingly so that it can be properly rendered by a browser.

it seems i'm in the minority on this point, and my vacation is over, i'm no longer constrained to the troubles of dial up internet access via cell phone modem at 14.4k/sec. it's no bother any longer, until the next vacation where slow dial up is the only access.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neysx
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 795

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mark_lybarger wrote:
thanks for the tip on getting a tarball/cvs. i'd be interested in docs on then how to render the docs. i'm after a way to have all the gentoo docs available offline, and there doesn't seem to be an ebuild that i could find.
Our web nodes (bar one) use www-servers/gorg
mark_lybarger wrote:
no, i don't get a php source code file when i wget http://agilo.acjs.net/alessandro.php, but xml files are different. browsers treat them differently. it seems that they can't or don't tell a file's content by the content type or existent of an xml declaration.
Bad browser, fix browser or change browser, or rename the files.
mark_lybarger wrote:
thus, i think that delivering anything with a .xml extension should be well formed and valid xml. if the content inside the document is truely html, or xhtml transitional (some tags don't have end tags), then i think the document should be delivered with a html extension. it just plays nice with the way browsers currently work.
Plain wrong. The resource you ask for is an xml file, what you receive may very well be text, html, xhtml, xml, pdf, whatnot depending on parameters and what the user agent accepts.
mark_lybarger wrote:
i also think that using wget to rename the output file is a hack. the "getter" must know the item is really xhtml transitional (or html) and know to name the file accordingly so that it can be properly rendered by a browser.
It's not a hack, it's a feature. wget is smart enough to add .html to html files, and to html files only. It knows what is html and what isn't because the web server sends the information.
mark_lybarger wrote:
it seems i'm in the minority on this point, and my vacation is over, i'm no longer constrained to the troubles of dial up internet access via cell phone modem at 14.4k/sec. it's no bother any longer, until the next vacation where slow dial up is the only access.
Renaming all .xml files to .html (which can't be done anyway) would not change a thing to that (except URLs would be one char longer).

Hth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark_lybarger
Guru
Guru


Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

neysx wrote:


mark_lybarger wrote:
no, i don't get a php source code file when i wget http://agilo.acjs.net/alessandro.php, but xml files are different. browsers treat them differently. it seems that they can't or don't tell a file's content by the content type or existent of an xml declaration.
Bad browser, fix browser or change browser, or rename the files.


i'm using mozilla and konqueror to render these "xml resources". could you please show me to a browser which will render the item the way you would like it to be rendered (by inspecting the internal doc type and not by the mime type / file extension)? somehow i don't see these folks just "fixing" their behavior.

a final note, if the docs are using xhtml, why can't they be at least well formed xml?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
curtis119
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2159
Location: Toledo, OH, USA, North America, Earth, SOL System, Milky Way, The Universe, The Cosmos, and Beyond.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mark_lybarger wrote:
neysx wrote:


mark_lybarger wrote:
no, i don't get a php source code file when i wget http://agilo.acjs.net/alessandro.php, but xml files are different. browsers treat them differently. it seems that they can't or don't tell a file's content by the content type or existent of an xml declaration.
Bad browser, fix browser or change browser, or rename the files.


i'm using mozilla and konqueror to render these "xml resources". could you please show me to a browser which will render the item the way you would like it to be rendered (by inspecting the internal doc type and not by the mime type / file extension)? somehow i don't see these folks just "fixing" their behavior.

a final note, if the docs are using xhtml, why can't they be at least well formed xml?


First of all the current site, www.gentoo.org, doesn't use xhtml. It uses html-4.01 transitional. It's the wwwredesign.gentoo.org (which will eventually become www.gentoo.org) that uses xhtml. But that is a moot point since you are missing the point: They are well formed xml. If you put ?passthru=1 in the url of any page and check the actual xml file you will find they are all "well formed" xml.

The point you are missing is that the web nodes take that "well formed" xml and uses XSLT to transform it into html 4.01 transitional. The web nodes send that doctype to the browser and it renders the page as html NOT as xml. If you want to view the docs offline either save the xml file locally and change the extension to html or set up a mirror.

Using XSLT/XML in this fashion is a w3c supported standard so I really don't see why you are having this difficulty with accepting it. As neysx pointed out, your own site uses pages that end in .php and you seem to understand "why" that is. Why can't you understand this? It's the exact same thing, honest and for true.
_________________
Please read the Forum Guidelines.
* | www.gayroughnecks.com | *
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sven Vermeulen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 29 Aug 2002
Posts: 1345
Location: Mechelen, Belgium

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another example, one without extensions, is a J2EE application server; a possible URL would be http://blabla/app/LogonServlet. LogonServlet is a name that tells the application server to trigger an application (a servlet) which presents you HTML.

Or if application servers are unknown territory, what about cgi-bin stuff?

Lots of examples where extensions don't matter.
_________________
Please add "[solved]" to the initial topic title when it is solved. TIA.
Linux Sea (PDF), an online e-book on Gentoo Linux
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark_lybarger
Guru
Guru


Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
They are well formed xml. If you put ?passthru=1 in the url of any page and check the actual xml file you will find they are all "well formed" xml.

The point you are missing is that the web nodes take that "well formed" xml and uses XSLT to transform it into html 4.01 transitional. The web nodes send that doctype to the browser and it renders the page as html NOT as xml. If you want to view the docs offline either save the xml file locally and change the extension to html or set up a mirror.

Using XSLT/XML in this fashion is a w3c supported standard so I really don't see why you are having this difficulty with accepting it. As neysx pointed out, your own site uses pages that end in .php and you seem to understand "why" that is. Why can't you understand this? It's the exact same thing, honest and for true.


the content that's delivered is not well formed xml unless i pass an extra parameter to the server.

i'm curious what is the w3c standard to convert xml to an html document (having an xml extension) using xslt. i'm familiar with using xslt to transform xml documents (most typically into other xml documents, thought that's up to the xslt author).

again, browsers treat files with xml extensions differently, either through mime or some other determination. thus, i believe, that having a url with an xml extension that does not return well formed xml, is an unfriendly practice. can you show some other sites that use .xml as an extension for a url that returns html transitional content? i've given a valid reason why it's not a friendly practice, that most browsers will not render the saved url. can you please show some reason why it _is_ a friendly practice. the j2ee, cgi-bin, etc stuff is very mute, none of those have xml extensions. i'd expect a browser would render that properly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nevynxxx
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 1123
Location: Manchester - UK

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mark_lybarger wrote:
again, browsers treat files with xml extensions differently, either through mime or some other determination. thus, i believe, that having a url with an xml extension that does not return well formed xml, is an unfriendly practice. can you show some other sites that use .xml as an extension for a url that returns html transitional content? i've given a valid reason why it's not a friendly practice, that most browsers will not render the saved url. can you please show some reason why it _is_ a friendly practice. the j2ee, cgi-bin, etc stuff is very mute, none of those have xml extensions. i'd expect a browser would render that properly.


Could you give us a valid reason why browsers will not render a saved .php url?

That would be the same thing. You are asking that a dynamic content be saved locally and still work.

Dynamic content is not intended to work like that regardless of it being xml, php, asp, .net ........ad infinitum.

You have been given a way to save content locally (three actually), and you have be told that the content in a "live" or "dynamic" or "online" situation is not xml, even though the url *must* ask for xml for the system to work, and have seen that it works for you in your browser (I assume you only have this problem if you save the url locally?).

This is now going in circles!
_________________
My Public Key

Wanted: Instructor in the art of Bowyery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
codergeek42
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 5142
Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mark_lybarger wrote:
the content that's delivered is not well formed xml unless i pass an extra parameter to the server.
Unless you pass that extra ?passthru=1 to the server, it won't be XML. The server sends the correct text/html Content-Type header, and the page conforms to the HTML 4.01 Transitional standards, as published by the W3C. It should be noted that the extension of the file does not matter at all whatsoever. As a very simple example to help illustrate this point, I could configure Apache to send files that end in ".fart" as PNG images:
Code:
AddType    image/png   .fart
The server does the necessary mapping to its filesystem(s) as appropriate. Thus, the only way your user agent should know what type of file it is, is by using the various HTTP headers that the server responds with. This is one area where Microsoft's IE fails miserably, for the curious.
Quote:
i'm curious what is the w3c standard to convert xml to an html document (having an xml extension) using xslt. i'm familiar with using xslt to transform xml documents (most typically into other xml documents, thought that's up to the xslt author).
You may want to read XSL Transformations (XSLT) - HTML Output Method.
_________________
~~ Peter: Brony, GNU/Linux geek, caffeine addict, and Free Software advocate.
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
neysx
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 795

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mark_lybarger wrote:
the content that's delivered is not well formed xml unless i pass an extra parameter to the server.
You're the only one expecting that and you don't want to understand.
mark_lybarger wrote:
again, browsers treat files with xml extensions differently, either through mime or some other determination. thus, i believe, that having a url with an xml extension that does not return well formed xml, is an unfriendly practice.
Again, browsers rely on the content-type http header that is returned by the web server, not on the name of the url.
You're beating a dead horse, get over it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mark_lybarger
Guru
Guru


Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You may want to read XSL Transformations (XSLT) - HTML Output Method.


i don't see anything about file extensions. you can certainly transform one document input.xml using stylesheet foo.xslt into output.html. i don't even think that an xml document needs to have a .xml extension according to the w3c specifications. the problem is that operating systems and even browsers do rely on file extensions.

Quote:

You're the only one expecting that and you don't want to understand.


probably. i don't understand why it's a big deal to change from .xml to .html extensions in order to allow browsers to properly display the content. in order to allow the extension to more match the content of the file.

... browsers will render a .php saved url. php isn't in the special file extensions that browers have (xml, maybe xslt). thus, the browser then looks at the content to determine rendering. why xml is special. i don't know, i'm not a browser coder, but file extensions do have special meaning to the browsers. i know that trying to render foo.xml that is not well formed xml does not work so nicely.

i'm merely curious why it's viewed as "better" to have foo.xml as as url, than to have foo.html for a url that returns html? it's more convenient for the web developer this way? it's not more convenient for the end user. yes, there have been several work arounds pointed out. each of which require the document viewer to know something special about the site. from that respect, i would still call the work arounds a kludge. workable, yes.

i'm actually quite surprised this issue hasn't been raised before, i just happened upon it while trying to view some docs.

Quote:
You're beating a dead horse, get over it.


it seems that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum