[Bug 908] LFS Testing doesn't render properly on MSIE
matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Oct 5 15:13:24 PDT 2004
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> But what y'all need to realize is that that IE is the market
> share browser. More folks will end up using it one time or another
> to browse LFS than with other browsers.
> To the average Joe, it simply looks like the LFS book is poorly
> designed. Regardless that it isn't the book, but is in reality
> a buggy browser, perception is everything.
But, here's where we have an advantage. *Our* average Joe should be
clued-up enough to be able to understand that alternative browsers are
available, and the FAQ would tell him/her why the book doesn't render
correctly in IE.
> Think twice before adding the XML declaration back in. What
> exactly does it do for the book right now anyway?
Dunno. Manuel? I don't actually think it does anything, except make us
output standard XML.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/#sec-prolog-dtd says we
"SHOULD" output that declaration. RFC 2119 states:
"3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
Looking at that, I think we do have a valid reason to ignore the
particular item [XML declaration]. As we're still conforming to the XML
spec, does anyone have any other reasons why we "MUST" put the XML
declaration back? If not, then the "weighing" of the different courses
is heavily one-sided.
> Don't get me wrong, I really don't care which way you go. I
> just have been developing web sites long enough to know what
> folks say when it doesn't look right.
Yep, it's just a part of my day job too - I'm still reeling from the
pain caused by NN4 which until very recently (~3 months ago) was the
de-factor browser in our customer's corporate environment.
More information about the lfs-dev