SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 215
  1. #101
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The character encoding declared on your page specifies how a user agent is to interpret each character code. So if the code(s) for that 'ä' is according to the UTF-8 encoding of an 'ä', there's no problem.

    As Thomas said in the post above yours, there's another factor that comes into play here: the 'accept-charset' attribute of the form. That should be set to UTF-8 as well, but you can't rely on that, because browsers may still send whatever they feel like. So to guarantee well-formed markup, you would need to check every character in the posted data to verify that it is encoded as a valid Unicode code point, according to the UTF-8 encoding!

    Let's say I'm posting something through that form, and my browser sends the information encoded as ISO 8859-1. This means an 'ä' is encoded as 0xE4, which is not a valid code in UTF-8 (at least not by itself), and you're SOL.

    You can either reject such invalid data, or you can try to guess the proper encoding and convert it into UTF-8 before displaying it. Either way, it requires some work.

    A common problem is that with accept-charset="iso-8859-1", some browsers permit data encoded as Windows-1252 to be sent. Some code points in Windows-1252 are invalid in ISO 8859-1 (or, rather, they're invalid HTML with the ISO encoding).
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  2. #102
    SitePoint Zealot LSW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Juneau Alaska
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ooooooook. *grin*

    So I need to keep it in, they type ä and a script needs to change it to .... ä (I believe ... I need a good refference) as that is better for XML, or ä would do as well?
    Thank You, Migwetth, Gunalche’esh, Ha’w'aa, Danke

    Kyle Lamson



  3. #103
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ä and other named character references (other than the five that already exist in XML) are only declared in the X/HTML DTD's, and I don't think it is a good idea to rely on the DTD. So either use the character directly or use numbered character references.
    Simon Pieters

  4. #104
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, as zcorpan said, you can't rely on character entity references in X(HT)ML, except for the standard ones (<, >, & " and ').

    Those are declared in the DTD, and a non-validating XML parser is not required to read the DTD.

    You need to use a numeric character reference, i.e. ä or ä to be on the safe side.

    (Note that this applies to XML. In HTML the ' entity is not available, and you can't rely on hexadecimal notation to work for numeric references; i.e. use ä rather than ä.)
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  5. #105
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you can't rely on hexadecimal notation to work for numeric references; i.e. use ä rather than ä
    Is this what you're referring to?
    Note. Although the hexadecimal representation is not defined in [ISO8879], it is expected to be in the revision, as described in [WEBSGML]. This convention is particularly useful since character standards generally use hexadecimal representations.
    In my experience, only IE4 doesn't support hexadecimal character references, and as far as I understand from reading the spec, it is allowed to use them.
    Simon Pieters

  6. #106
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have a vague memory of some old browsers not supporting hexadecimal references, so for the sake of accessibility, I'd recommend using decimal notation.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  7. #107
    SitePoint Zealot LSW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Juneau Alaska
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh man, this gets better everytime I dig deeper...... Ok, think I have a handle on it now. Thanks for the help, will have to see what the CMS offers.
    Thank You, Migwetth, Gunalche’esh, Ha’w'aa, Danke

    Kyle Lamson



  8. #108
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes Netscape 4.xx if I remember was a little strange when it came to hexadecimal references.

  9. #109
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My copy of NN4.8 handles hexadecimal references just fine.
    Simon Pieters

  10. #110
    SitePoint Addict RamsayX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok so after reading all this, I have XHTML 1.1 here: http://www.ramsaystudios.ca/v5Dev/ Should I be sticking with this or go to XHTML 2? I'm not sure whats necessary at this point ...
    Personal Portfolio
    Paul O'B is the CSS god

  11. #111
    SitePoint Wizard jag5311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Somewhere in Indiana
    Posts
    3,082
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hey RamsayX, nice site coming along. I like its, its smooth.

    I am not a huge fan of flash for entire sites, but I appreciate a good flash site now and then.

  12. #112
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    XHTML 1.1 should not use text/html.

    You should use XHTML 1.0 Strict.

    Flash is so inaccessible.
    We miss you, Dan Schulz.
    Learn CSS. | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator
    Dynamic Site Solutions
    Code for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, & Opera, then add fixes for IE, not vice versa.

  13. #113
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    All I got was a grey page with a couple of validation badges. (I don't have the Flash plug-in.)

    You should not serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html, because it's not fully compliant with HTML. XHTML 2.0 is far from becoming a recommendation, further from being implemented in bleeding-edge browsers, and very far from being commonly supported.

    Since you seem to be able to serve your page as text/html, you should use HTML 4.01 Strict, which is the latest standard with any support worth mentioning. If you insist on pretending to use XHTML, you should stick to XHTML 1.0 Strict and make sure it is compliant with Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification if you serve it as text/html.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  14. #114
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    XHTML 1.0 under Appendix C ironically to all intense and proposes could mean using the XHTML Transitional.

  15. #115
    Word Painter silver trophy Shyflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Winona, MN USA
    Posts
    10,053
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by vgarcia
    No, not paying attention will make you sloppy. The DOCTYPE has little to do with how clean your code is. I've seen some ... very nasty XHTML.
    Been at my site again, have you?

    I use a doctype definition because it's my understanding it makes the code easier to parse. I could be wrong though (it's happened). Still, I've also read that eventually documents will need all the bells and whistles so it's a good habit to get into now, I think.

    I validate using html-tidy which usually has what the document appears to be in the messages and substitute that doc-type for whatever I used.
    Linda Jenkinson
    "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown

  16. #116
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by xhtmlcoder
    Off Topic:

    XHTML 1.0 under Appendix C ironically to all intense and proposes could mean using the XHTML Transitional.
    The DTD has nothing to do with this. You can serve XHTML 1.0 Strict, Transitional or Frameset as text/html, provided you satisfy the conditions in Appendix C.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shyflower
    I use a doctype definition because it's my understanding it makes the code easier to parse. I could be wrong though (it's happened).
    The doctype declaration has two uses:
    1. It tells a validator which grammar to compare your markup with (original purpose).
    2. It affects the choice of quirks mode or standards mode in many browsers (later addition)

    It doesn't affect parsing at all, but it does have some impact on rendering if you use CSS.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  17. #117
    SitePoint Addict RamsayX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by jag5311
    Hey RamsayX, nice site coming along. I like its, its smooth.

    I am not a huge fan of flash for entire sites, but I appreciate a good flash site now and then.
    Hey jag, thanks for the nice comment, I wasn't looking for feedback really since this site isn't anywhere close to completion, but thank you I agree with the flash-site notion, most are too bloated and overdone when its entirely flash, I'm trying to avoid that really. (Examples of good uses of "all-flash" are http://www.fantasy-interactive.com and http://www.2advanced.com). Just wait until I'm finished then look at it again

    Quote Originally Posted by Kravvitz
    XHTML 1.1 should not use text/html.

    You should use XHTML 1.0 Strict.

    Flash is so inaccessible.
    Ok where can I read about this text/html bit? I don't understand that part yet ... I've been using XHTML transitional for 2 - 3 years now ... but only for the sake of having clean validated code. I've yet to learn XML though I plan to. Why shouldn't I use 1.1 instead of 1.0 strict? Please explain. (It was hard enough getting to 1.0 strict nevermind 1.1 considering I have new page links and flash movies embedded on the page )

    Flash isn't unaccessible when its done properly. I will strive to prove that point when I'm done this site. Thanks.

    http://www.ramsaystudios.ca/v5Dev/index.php
    Personal Portfolio
    Paul O'B is the CSS god

  18. #118
    Word Painter silver trophy Shyflower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Winona, MN USA
    Posts
    10,053
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo
    The DTD has nothing to do with this. You can serve XHTML 1.0 Strict, Transitional or Frameset as text/html, provided you satisfy the conditions in Appendix C.


    The doctype declaration has two uses:
    1. It tells a validator which grammar to compare your markup with (original purpose).
    2. It affects the choice of quirks mode or standards mode in many browsers (later addition)

    It doesn't affect parsing at all, but it does have some impact on rendering if you use CSS.
    Thanks... nice to know.
    Linda Jenkinson
    "Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean." ~Unknown

  19. #119
    CSS & JS/DOM Adept bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,482
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RamsayX
    Hey jag, thanks for the nice comment, I wasn't looking for feedback really since this site isn't anywhere close to completion, but thank you I agree with the flash-site notion, most are too bloated and overdone when its entirely flash, I'm trying to avoid that really. (Examples of good uses of "all-flash" are http://www.fantasy-interactive.com and http://www.2advanced.com). Just wait until I'm finished then look at it again
    Fantasy Interactive is more accessible than most flash sites, but you still don't know where the links will take you and the location in the location bar doesn't change. What makes it a bit more accessible is that the paragraph text is selectable. The rest isn't. Could a blind person access that page? No.

    The people who made 2Advanced obviously have great skill in graphics and animation, however as to accessibility it's as bad as any other Flash site.

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsayX
    Ok where can I read about this text/html bit? I don't understand that part yet ... I've been using XHTML transitional for 2 - 3 years now ... but only for the sake of having clean validated code. I've yet to learn XML though I plan to. Why shouldn't I use 1.1 instead of 1.0 strict? Please explain. (It was hard enough getting to 1.0 strict nevermind 1.1 considering I have new page links and flash movies embedded on the page )
    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary

    Basically, XHTML is not HTML, it's XML that looks a lot like HTML, thus it should be treated more like XML than HTML. This is one of many reasons that I usually use HTML 4.01. IE can't handle application/xhtml+xml.

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsayX
    Flash isn't unaccessible when its done properly. I will strive to prove that point when I'm done this site. Thanks.

    http://www.ramsaystudios.ca/v5Dev/index.php
    Your site isn't done yet, but I doubt it will be any more accessible than Fantasy Interactive.
    We miss you, Dan Schulz.
    Learn CSS. | X/HTML Validator | CSS validator
    Dynamic Site Solutions
    Code for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, & Opera, then add fixes for IE, not vice versa.

  20. #120
    SitePoint Addict RamsayX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kravvitz
    Fantasy Interactive is more accessible than most flash sites, but you still don't know where the links will take you and the location in the location bar doesn't change. What makes it a bit more accessible is that the paragraph text is selectable. The rest isn't. Could a blind person access that page? No.

    The people who made 2Advanced obviously have great skill in graphics and animation, however as to accessibility it's as bad as any other Flash site.
    Ok I see what you mean, you're right for the most part.


    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/#summary

    Basically, XHTML is not HTML, it's XML that looks a lot like HTML, thus it should be treated more like XML than HTML. This is one of many reasons that I usually use HTML 4.01. IE can't handle application/xhtml+xml.
    Thanks, I'll take a read when I get a chance.

    Your site isn't done yet, but I doubt it will be any more accessible than Fantasy Interactive.
    We'll see ... I plan to do "Tooltips", page anchors (which 99% of flash sites don't for some reason), selectable text, etc. Changing the text in the status bar/location bar I believe is possible with javascript, I shall attempt this as well.

    Thanks for the answers. Anyway not meaning to get off topic here, this is an XHTML thread after all
    Personal Portfolio
    Paul O'B is the CSS god

  21. #121
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RamsayX
    Flash isn't unaccessible when its done properly. I will strive to prove that point when I'm done this site.
    All I get is a grey page and you're telling me it's not inaccessible?

    I'm looking forward to seeing your point proven.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  22. #122
    SitePoint Addict RamsayX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As mentioned above, it's not complete yet, far from it. Are you sure you have the flash plugin installed?

    I appreciate the sense of humour though
    Personal Portfolio
    Paul O'B is the CSS god

  23. #123
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    I know Mr T. that's what I was hinting at before there was a least a choice of three sometimes people think it's a choice of one.


    Mr T. doesn't have the Flash plug in even if he did he'd probably then surf with Lynx or something just to prove the point Flash only proprietary and not always suitable. Case of no plugin no Flash however hard you try.

    Although you could provide a degradable alternative.

  24. #124
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Are you sure you have the flash plugin installed?
    That's another point why it's not accessible. Everyone doesn't have flash installed (or want to). You need to make an accessible HTML version as fallback.
    Simon Pieters

  25. #125
    SitePoint Addict RamsayX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    324
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan
    That's another point why it's not accessible. Everyone doesn't have flash installed (or want to). You need to make an accessible HTML version as fallback.
    It's not completed, once again. HTML version is forthcoming of course.
    Personal Portfolio
    Paul O'B is the CSS god


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •