Re: [xsl] Mozilla 1.0 rc2 Problems

Subject: Re: [xsl] Mozilla 1.0 rc2 Problems
From: "Michael Beddow" <mbnospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:06:06 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinkman, Theodore" <Theodore.Brinkman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 2:51 PM
Subject: RE: [xsl] Mozilla 1.0 rc2 Problems

> Technically, Moz isn't any pickier about mime-types than IE.  It simply
> listens to what the server says the mime-type is (like it *should*)


Er, that's what I take picky to mean. Unless the server Does the Right
Thing, Moz won't play. Correctly and justificably picky, maybe, but picky
all the same. The real-world problem here is getting server admins to fix
their mime-types, especially for xslt. People who can't change their host
server, or get its admin to see sense, have a problem. IE's undoubtably
problematic reliance on the extension means that the site author can solve,
or at least mask, the problem without sysadmin intervention and so get the
pages rendered client side.

There's a similar pragmatic issue in IE's much-maligned encoding-detection
heuristics. Sure, a browser ought to trust the encoding declared in the
server header and or the meta-tag (as again, Moz correctly does) but it's a
depressing fact that a number of, e.g. Russian or Japanese sites declare the
wrong encoding in their pages (especially when they offer parallel pages in
different encodings). Result: Moz with all the right attitudes, shows
garbage until the savvy user intervenes, IE, by arguably dubious means,
shows what the site authors intended straight off. HTML is an incurably
messy area.

Michael Beddow

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread