On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:33 AM Karl Kleinpaste <k...@kleinpaste.org> wrote:
> On 4/16/20 11:08 PM, Greg Hellings wrote: > > <!DOCTYPE html> will give you HTML 5, not XHTML. XHTML would be much > wordier: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_type_declaration#XHTML_Basic_DTDs > > > Well... That link itself says: > > In XHTML5 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML5> the DOCTYPE must be a > case-sensitive match of the string "<!DOCTYPE html>". > > So I'm already confused. Didn't take much, huh? > > - begins with <?xml...> line >> > > Doesn't seem to be strictly needed by browsers for XHTML rendering, but it > shouldn't hurt, either. > > I used it based on the examples seen at > https://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2019-March/046664.html > which I saved at the time and used as a reference now. > > - changes content type to application/xhtml+xml (also tried just xhtml, no >> diff) >> > > That's not necessary to get you into XHTML mode. > > OK, keep that thought in mind -- now, ready for my next confusion? Here > goes: > > They only thing they care about is the Content-Type: in the HTTP header. > Of course, you don't have an HTTP header, but surely you have a way to set > it to "application/xhtml+xml"? > > See, on the one hand you say "not necessary" but in your next breath you > say it's "the only thing they care about." OK, which is it? > > There has been this "meta" directive in the header to induce general > HTMLness via content-type since years before I got involved, and I've never > touched that particular aspect of it until now. > > Trust me, I remain wide open to suggestions, but just in your one response > here, you've given me 2 completely self-contradictory indications, one > about DOCTYPE and one about content-type. > > Small wonder people have trouble writing code to deal with this, I guess. > I think the confusion comes from me mixing my response. Discussion of proper DOCTYPE and the necessity of the <?xml version="1.0" ?> directive are about what makes a valid XHTML document But, as I read more, I came to find that the HTML WG suggests, and apparently all browsers implement, ignoring those directives and instaead caring only about the Content-Type header/directive. So if you have that header/directive in Xiphos, then try updating that to the appropriate "application/xhtml+xml" and see if that fixes Xiphos/WebKit's behavior? --Greg
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page