| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:34:19 -0400 |
| 4 |
Philip Webb <purslow@×××××××××.ca> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:10:17AM -0400, Philip Webb wrote |
| 7 |
> >> Following the usual procedure in such cases of trying simple changes, |
| 8 |
> >> I changed the file extension to '.html' & Epiphany now has no problem. |
| 9 |
> >> Does anyone have any comment on this strange sequence of events ? |
| 10 |
> > With HTML, the philosophy is that the parser tries to carry on, |
| 11 |
> > even with lots of errors in the HTML code. XML is much stricter |
| 12 |
> > and an error is much more likely to be treated as fatal. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Well in that case (raises eyebrows), one has to ask |
| 15 |
> (1) why does Gentoo offer its docs in such a strict format |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It offers it in text/html (MIME type as transmitted by the web server) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> & (2) why there is a bug in the XML sufficient to stall the browsers. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It's not XML (there's no real "file name extension" concept in URI-land). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You probably saved it under a file name resembling the URI, thus |
| 24 |
leading your browser to the assumption it might be XML - and it has to |
| 25 |
make assumptions for file:// requests, since there's no "Content-Type" |
| 26 |
on plain file systems. The conceptual failure is the part that |
| 27 |
circumvents this (unreliable) detection algorithm by saving that file |
| 28 |
by a name ending in ".xml" (my browser doesn't even offer ".xml" as a |
| 29 |
preset for the file format when trying to save the HTML page of the |
| 30 |
user guide). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-hwh |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives