Comments on: I’ve converted to application/xhtml+xml

By: document.write() fix for (real) XHTML | ara pehlivanian—Web Standards, Web Culture, Web Everything.™

Fri, 12 May 2006 15:13:09 +0000

[...] It’s been brought to my attention that it may not be clear as to why I’ve written this script. Well this is a niche problem for those who serve pages using the application/xhtml+xml MIME type–i.e. real XHTML. To learn more about this issue read: Does document.write work in XHTML? and Why document.write() doesn’t work in XML [...]

By: Hacking the Technorati Badge or: How I Hacked Document.Write() in Order to Make it Work With application/xhtml+xml | ara pehlivanian—Web Standards, Web Culture, Web Everything.™

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 04:57:56 +0000

[...] The first thing I noticed when I switched to application/xhtml+xml was how unforgiving the XML parser is with badly formed markup. It stops parsing and displays a big fat red error message where your page is supposed to be. The second thing I noticed was how my nifty little third party JavaScript includes all stopped working. I’m talking of course about my AdSense ads and my Technorati Badge (which is now back in my footer thank-you-very-much). [...]

By: Ara

Ara — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:03:17 +0000

Daniel,

Awesome! I’ll be sure to check out your plugin!

By: Daniel Doro Ferrante

Daniel Doro Ferrante — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:36:21 +0000

Hi Ara,

I use my blog for physics and math and science stuff in general… so, naturally, the need for MahtML appeared. Therefore, the need for correct MIME types was as strong as ever. ;)

I ended up trying ALL WP plugins that do ”content negotiation” in a form or another… but neither of them made me quite happy… so, sure enough, i’ve written my own: WP-XHTML-mime.php (i also have an entry in my blog pseudo-explaining this: Setting the correct MIME type). I haven’t had time, yet, to post the plugin in the appropriate sites nor to write a static page with all the proper explanations… but, i hope you’ll understand.

Please, feel [more-than-]free to contact me with BUGS or improvements. :)

Cheers, []’s!

By: Ara

Ara — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:47:36 +0000

Well, the proper form is to write it ”Extensible,” however ”eXtensible” places the emphasis on the first sound and not the first letter of the word. So, really, you’re both right. And really, XML sounds a lot cooler than EML. ;-)

By: Steve Williams

Steve Williams — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:21:27 +0000

Why is it Extensible and not eXtensible when describing XML/XHTML?

If it were Extensible, shouldn’t the acronyms be EML/EHTML respectively? Cheers :)

By: Ara

Ara — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:05:59 +0000

It doesn’t, it only checks the doctype. The way around this is to check for the validator and send it the other doctype.

Oh. Well then that explains it. I don’t think I read Anne’s comment closely enough. For some reason I thought he meant that the validator was making a distinction between XHTML versions, instead of accepting the application/xhtml+XML MIME type. Oops. My bad.

By: Admiral Justin

Admiral Justin — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 02:00:47 +0000

The validator might not have application/xhtml+XML in its Accept: header.

It doesn’t, it only checks the doctype. The way around this is to check for the validator and send it the other doctype.

By: Ara

Ara — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:49:50 +0000

The validator might not have application/xhtml+XML in its Accept: header.

It must, because Jeremy Keith’s Adactio validates as XHTML 1.1 just fine. I must be doing something wrong somewhere. :-(

XHTML 1.1 is a bit older than XHTML 1.0 though and really has no benefits at the moment. (Some disadvantages and some small errors.)

Well according to my research, XHTML as a rule doesn’t bring any advantages to the average website. I’m just doing it because it appeals to my obsessive compulsive/perfectionist side. But errors in 1.1 might desuede me from using it.

And really, XML should be marked up with abbr, not acronym. It is also Extensible and not eXtensible.

Actually—as far as the English language goes—an abbreviation and an acronym are two different things. For example ”dest.” is an abbreviation for ”destination” and ”AJAX” is an acronym for ”Asynchronous Javascript And XML.” Unfortunately the plugin that I use to automatically wrap acronyms and abbreviations—which also outputs eXtensible instead of Extensible, which I should change—doesn’t differentiate between the two. On top of which, the comment filter adds acronym tags and then WordPress does the same when rendering so I get double nested acronym tags! *sigh* What a mess. Like they say, ”if you want it done right, you’ve got to do it yourself.” I just don’t know if I have the time to write all my own plugins and scripts.

By: Anne van Kesteren

Anne van Kesteren — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:38:36 +0000

The validator might not have application/xhtml+XML in its Accept: header.

XHTML 1.1 is a bit older than XHTML 1.0 though and really has no benefits at the moment. (Some disadvantages and some small errors.)

And really, XML should be marked up with abbr, not acronym. It is also Extensible and not eXtensible.