Re: Content Type for .css files

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christian Biesinger wrote: > Jens Hatlak wrote: >> Christian Biesinger wrote: >>> However, this is only the case for pages using the strict mode. >>> It works for others, so a doctype like this can be used and the >>> stylesheet will work: >>> >>> (I hope I rememb

Re: Content Type for .css files

Jens Hatlak wrote: > Christian Biesinger wrote: >> However, this is only the case for pages using the strict mode. >> It works for others, so a doctype like this can be used and the >> stylesheet will work: >> >> (I hope I remember correctly...( > The problem is not the Strict mode but the URL.

Re: Content Type for .css files

Jens Hatlak wrote: > The problem is not the Strict mode but the URL. No matter if you use > Strict or Transitional: The .css file will not be recognized if both the > server sends the file with the wrong MIME type *and* a URL is specified, > e.g. > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-html40-1999

Re: Content Type for .css files

Christian Biesinger wrote: > Sören Kuklau wrote: > >> On 3/2/2002 1:57 PM, Val Sharp apparently wrote exactly the following: >> >>> Mozilla has started checking the Content Type of stylesheets, and >>> won't recognise the file if it has the wrong Content Type. >> >> >> >> True. This was, I think

Re: Content Type for .css files

basic wrote: > > Val Sharp wrote: > >> Then we have another problem because, for example, page >> has the following >> DOCTYPE: >> >> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> > > this gives "strict" mode, or a better term "mor

Re: Content Type for .css files

Pascal Chevrel wrote: > Val Sharp a dit : >> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> > > I think that this is because of your XHTML syntax, try the following DTD : > "DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Both of these doctypes trigger the strict mode, because of the URL in them.

Re: Content Type for .css files

Val Sharp wrote: > Then we have another problem because, for example, page > has the following > DOCTYPE: > > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";> this gives "strict" mode, or a better term "more standards compliant" mode. se

Re: Content Type for .css files

Val Sharp a dit : > Christian Biesinger wrote: > <...> > > > > However, this is only the case for pages using the strict mode. It > > works for others, so a doctype like this can be used and the stylesheet > > will work: > Transitional//EN"> (I hope I remember correctly...( > > > > > The

Re: Content Type for .css files

On 3/4/2002 7:30 PM, Val Sharp apparently wrote exactly the following: > Christian Biesinger wrote: > <...> > > > > However, this is only the case for pages using the strict mode. It > > works for others, so a doctype like this can be used and the stylesheet > > will work: > Transitional//EN

Re: Content Type for .css files

Christian Biesinger wrote: <...> > > However, this is only the case for pages using the strict mode. It > works for others, so a doctype like this can be used and the stylesheet > will work: Transitional//EN"> (I hope I remember correctly...( > Then we have another problem because, for exa

Re: Content Type for .css files

Val Sharp a dit : > Pascal Chevrel wrote: > >> > <...> > >> Val, could you indicate the URL of the css files on the server causing >> problems ? I will open a bugzilla report about it and will talk about >> it to a Netscape Technology Evangelist. > > > > For example: > >

Re: Content Type for .css files

On 3/3/2002 9:14 PM, Christian Biesinger apparently wrote exactly the following: > Sören Kuklau wrote: >> On 3/2/2002 1:57 PM, Val Sharp apparently wrote exactly the following: >>> Mozilla has started checking the Content Type of stylesheets, and >>> won't recognise the file if it has the wrong C

Re: Content Type for .css files

Sören Kuklau wrote: > On 3/2/2002 1:57 PM, Val Sharp apparently wrote exactly the following: > >> Mozilla has started checking the Content Type of stylesheets, and >> won't recognise the file if it has the wrong Content Type. > > > True. This was, I think, changed in 0.9.7. Should be somewhere

Re: Content Type for .css files

On 3/3/2002 6:55 AM, Pratik apparently wrote exactly the following: > On 3/2/2002 10:42 PM, Sören Kuklau wrote: > >> On 3/3/2002 5:06 AM, dman84 apparently wrote exactly the following: >> >>> I've been using it since Netscape 6.0, >>> the next release of netscape will rock like Mozilla... >>> >>

Re: Content Type for .css files

Pascal Chevrel wrote: > <...> > Val, could you indicate the URL of the css files on the server causing > problems ? I will open a bugzilla report about it and will talk about it > to a Netscape Technology Evangelist. For example:

Re: Content Type for .css files

On 3/2/2002 10:42 PM, Sören Kuklau wrote: >On 3/3/2002 5:06 AM, dman84 apparently wrote exactly the following: > >>I've been using it since Netscape 6.0, >>the next release of netscape will rock like Mozilla... >> > >Yup. I just enabled recycled windows, and MY GOD is it fast now. >Netscape 6.5

Re: Content Type for .css files

On 3/3/2002 5:06 AM, dman84 apparently wrote exactly the following: > I've been using it since Netscape 6.0, > the next release of netscape will rock like Mozilla... Yup. I just enabled recycled windows, and MY GOD is it fast now. Netscape 6.5 *will* rock. -- Regards, Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')

Re: Content Type for .css files

dman84 wrote: >> >> Except that the provide _free_ e-mail etc. >> > > well so does netscape.. I know, but Sören said, 'That is quite a reason for not to use this ISP any longer. Translate it to "all we really do care about is to get your money"', and I was pointing out that they don't make m

Re: Content Type for .css files

> > Except that the provide _free_ e-mail etc. > well so does netscape.. I've been using it since Netscape 6.0, the next release of netscape will rock like Mozilla... -Dennis

Re: Content Type for .css files

Val Sharp a dit : > (Subject originated as 'Stylesheet not working in Mozilla' in > netscape.public.mozilla.style) > > > Mozilla has started checking the Content Type of stylesheets, and won't > recognise the file if it has the wrong Content Type. > > Two Content Types appear to be listed fo

Re: Content Type for .css files

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sören Kuklau wrote: > > Is Netscape Online UK affiliated with AOLTW's Netscape (Netscape > Communications)? I wasn't able to find any information on a company > called "Netscape Online" located in the UK on Google. i don't believe they are offering new signups s

Re: Content Type for .css files

Sören Kuklau wrote: > > Is Netscape Online UK affiliated with AOLTW's Netscape (Netscape > Communications)? Yes, it's a UK-centric version of www.netscape.com I wasn't able to find any information on a company > called "Netscape Online" located in the UK on Google. > http://www.netscape.co.u

Re: Content Type for .css files

On 3/2/2002 1:57 PM, Val Sharp apparently wrote exactly the following: > Mozilla has started checking the Content Type of stylesheets, and won't > recognise the file if it has the wrong Content Type. True. This was, I think, changed in 0.9.7. Should be somewhere in the release notes. > Two Con

Content Type for .css files

(Subject originated as 'Stylesheet not working in Mozilla' in netscape.public.mozilla.style) Mozilla has started checking the Content Type of stylesheets, and won't recognise the file if it has the wrong Content Type. Two Content Types appear to be listed for .css files: [application/x-pontp