Code: Select all
#header
{
background-image: url("../img/header.jpg");
background-repeat:no-repeat;
background-position:top;
position:relative;
top:0px;
width:100%;
height:75px;
color:white;
}
#main
{
position:relative;
top: 75px;
width:100%;
height:auto;
}Code: Select all
body
{
margin-left:auto;
margin-right:auto;
font-family:serif;
background-color:white;
color:black;
font-size: 14px ;
font-family: "Arial" , serif ;
}
That is not fully correct. IE just doesn't know the content type application/xhtml+xml. You can however add it via regedit32, then IE will no longer show the dialog but display the page.Flammie wrote:IE doesn't support xhtml at all and that is not correct xhtml 1.1 anyways if IE displays it. Xhtml version 1.1 has requirement of serving files as Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml which brings up download dialog with IE the last I checked. If on the other hand you trick browsers with Content-Type: text/html, they will all parse it as html regardless of what doctypes you put in your source.
But if you are concerned of your page's working in IE, why would you select XHTML anyway? IE has nil* support for xhtml, but works perfectly with html 4.01 strict, which is still w3c recommendation.
The problem is, if your site is aimed at people who would use IE in the first place they won't be able to do anything that complicated anyways. And IE still hasn't anything xhtml support in the browser AFAIK, it just discards all odd slashes and such from the markup, and allows everything incorrect like it always has (xhtml and xml have the requirement for browser's to strictly require correct markup: if you open broken file in mozilla or opera you will only get validity error).kustos wrote:That is not fully correct. IE just doesn't know the content type application/xhtml+xml. You can however add it via regedit32, then IE will no longer show the dialog but display the page.
Is there anything you can do, with an ActiveX empowered browser?Flammie wrote: The problem is, if your site is aimed at people who would use IE in the first place they won't be able to do anything that complicated anyways.
You are mixing to things here. Well formed xml and valid xhtml.Flammie wrote: And IE still hasn't anything xhtml support in the browser AFAIK, it just discards all odd slashes and such from the markup, and allows everything incorrect like it always has (xhtml and xml have the requirement for browser's to strictly require correct markup: if you open broken file in mozilla or opera you will only get validity error).
Wow, a lots. Like update a broken browser/os component to a more broken version of os component/browser, and, uh, virus scan and delete contents of hard drive automatically \o/kustos wrote:Is there anything you can do, with an ActiveX empowered browser?Flammie wrote: The problem is, if your site is aimed at people who would use IE in the first place they won't be able to do anything that complicated anyways.
Yeah, I was too lazy to check the terminology hereYou are mixing to things here. Well formed xml and valid xhtml.
Oh, I did not know this. I've always believed in the usenet experts on the case of IE's support for xhtml, so I haven't tested beyond the download dialog.Mozilla and every other browser accepts invalid (x)html, no matter what mode.
Mozilla rejects not well formed xml, when it is delivired as application/xhtml+xml. But so does IE, one you add this content type. To test this save a non well formed xhtml as whatever.xhtml (not .html or .htm) and open it with IE.
That's the point. There is no practical difference on yet, but the xhtml requires all kinds of tricks and tweaks and we still can't be sure it will work properly for the majority of users, so there's no point in using it, yet. Only reason I can see for using xhtml for most of people is to learn in hope that someday we can even make use of xhtml, but that day won't come before:And then, where is the difference between HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 besides the later is well formed XML?
no-no-no! i think we can be very sure that xhtml works very well with all kind of browsers. for an example, the wikipedia-pages are well formed and valid xhtml and i think they wouldn't do that if ~90% of internet users weren't able to visit this pages with their ie.Flammie wrote:That's the point. There is no practical difference on yet, but the xhtml requires all kinds of tricks and tweaks and we still can't be sure it will work properly for the majority of users, so there's no point in using it, yet.And then, where is the difference between HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 besides the later is well formed XML?
And that the element names need to be lower case and I'm not sure if in html unquoted attribute values are allowed.plasmagunman wrote: all difference between html 4.01 and xhtml 1.0 i can see is the obligation to close all tags. since that was allowed in html also there shouldn't be any problem with that.
Wich is the same for HTML 4.01 transitional vs stirct.plasmagunman wrote: the difference between xhtml 1.0 transitional and xhtml 1.0 strict is just the ban of some attributes wich have to be replaced by css.
yes you're right, i forgot that.kustos wrote:And that the element names need to be lower case and I'm not sure if in html unquoted attribute values are allowed.plasmagunman wrote: all difference between html 4.01 and xhtml 1.0 i can see is the obligation to close all tags. since that was allowed in html also there shouldn't be any problem with that.
Well, you think wrong. There have just been said that a lot of users will need to hack registry to get it working.plasmagunman wrote:i think we can be very sure that xhtml works very well with all kind of browsers.
Wikipedia is a prime example of enormous amount of stupid tricks you need to even get the poor xhtml 1.0 transitional broken appendix C working on browsers. Just read the source code of any html page there, everything from cdata hacks to IE conditionals is being used. Most of the misguided people using xhtml in their web pages don't even know what a doctype is or how to create IE conditional section.for an example, the wikipedia-pages are well formed and valid xhtml and i think they wouldn't do that if ~90% of internet users weren't able to visit this pages with their ie.
I don't see any reason to use xhtml. Do you?i don't see any reason, why we shouldn't use xhtml on a newly designed page. okay, the only reason i can think of is the absence of xhtml-valid editors, i'm not sure if they already exist...
