export xhml my 2 cents

[lorenw]

I notice now when I export a movie it is in xhtml format.
(Where is all the javascript and noflash.gif support)

I made the switch to xhtml awhile back and even created a fully bobby compliant website so I am very familiar with xhtml.

Now for the big BUT xhtml will not work in i.e!

Wait, you are saying - It displays and works fine!

All xml documents that display in i.e. specify
application text/html or in KoolMoves case "nothing" which defeats the entire xhtml format since it is no longer xhtml except in name only.

Application should be text/xml which is the culprit that breaks i.e.

if application is missing or set to text/html the doc type should be html.

here is a good read on the subject.
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

There is a lot of discussion on this and either application type validates w3c but is really not xhtml.

I got wind of this information from Kevin Yank of site.com

Browsers decide how to handle a file based on the MIME type that the server sends with it.

HTML Web pages are identified with a MIME type of text/html.

Pages written in XHTML that are sent with a MIME type of text/html don't benefit from any of the features of XHTML.

To benefit from the features of XHTML, pages must be sent as application/xhtml+xml.

The most popular Web browser (Internet Explorer 6) cannot view pages sent as application/xhtml+xml.

In this article from sitepoint states:

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/future-html-xhtml

In fact, all claims that XHTML has no benefits over HTML only apply to XHTML 1.0 because the semantics of both document formats are identical. . . . . Unfortunately, most XHTML on the web is nothing more than tag soup, or is at least not well-formed, served as text/html. As previous surveys have shown, a majority of sites claiming to be XHTML don't even validate, and most would end up with browsers choking on them if the correct MIME type were used.

NOTE: I really like xhtml and prefer the coding practices.

BUT I would really like the html option back.(If there is the option I cannot find it . . . point me in the right direction and . . nevermind the post);)

Hey thanks for letting me sound off on this and all I want is an option for html and the support for nonflash.gif.

[Bob Hartzell]

I switched to the xhtml in the last version and streamlined the javascript. I caught flack for the very wordy javascript I was publishing before. I will add the missing text/xml. I could add an option for the nonflash.gif part.

[Bob Hartzell]

I think this link is missing something -
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

[docree]

It exports as an HTML document...
Just the meta tag says xhtml.

But since I've been around before meta tag was used,
it seems, to me at least, to be just a parser for
spiders and website readers.
[It just tells "it" how to handle the page.]

I have never seen a 4+ browser choke on a meta tag. Because
they tend to mean very little to an ordinary browser,
and degrade well with others.

If it's of concern, it can be changed to whatever you want.
[Sometimes I just delete the meta tag, depending on page
content. And, considering I'm not a "certified" member
of the IT club. Shmucks...]

If you want the no javascript / image / embed scripts,
just paste them over from the old code.

Then again flash is becoming more Bobby compliant,
and may no longer need those soon.
[You can tab thru buttons, and they (Macromedia) are
working on parsing text to "page readers" for the blind.]

Doc'Ree

Bob and I are replying at the same time.
So, that should answer your questions.

[lorenw]

I am going by the w3c validator and xhtml documentation.

Normally html can be written in any maner.

The idea behind xhtml is that it forces stricter coding practaises.

But since I've been around before meta tag was used,
it seems, to me at least, to be just a parser for
spiders and website readers.
[It just tells "it" how to handle the page.]

I have never seen a 4+ browser choke on a meta tag. Because
they tend to mean very little to an ordinary browser,
and degrade well with others.

(I have been around before the mouse was introduced.)
In fact the meta tag is not what sets the mime type as servers will send all content as text/html.

This must be accomplished using server side scripting - I use php to send the header as app. xml

I have set up two xhtml document and both validate as strict xhtml.

http://www.wlmark.com/test.php
http://www.wlmark.com/test2.php


here are links to the w3c validator service.
(extended interface)
this one shows content type as application xml and doesn't use a meta tag

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wlmark.com%2Ftest.php&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&outline=1&verbose=1

this one shows content type as text/html and it has the meta tag

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wlmark.com%2Ftest2.php&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&outline=1&verbose=1

View page source and both are virtually identical - As a mater of fact after looking you would think the page that has the meta tag should be the one to have application xhtml but as "docree" stated the meta tag is for other uses.

The only reason I jumped in here is that xhtml should validate or it should not be used as it is designed as a well formed language. You will actually get better results if you switch to an html doctype.

docree wrote-
>>It exports as an HTML document...
>>Just the meta tag says xhtml.

An XHTML document can have any extension (php,htm,html,asp,jsp)and it is the doctype that determins if it is XHTML.

The meta tag is pretty much just decoration.

All I am getting at here is that most people jump in and call their pages xhtml but they have defeated the entire purpose but it looks cool.

Also and this is a big also . . . in internet explorer (and all others)style sheets have diffrent properties regarding doctypes.

look at
http://www.wlmark.com/tabless/index.php

in another browser window look at
http://www.wlmark.com/tabless/index2.php

and toggle between the two. The only diffrence is the doctype one is xhtml the other is html

Notice the font change and the gap that appears between the left and center.

I have a feeling many users will be confused by the xhtml format and if they use style sheets they will notice strangeness in the layout.

I am learning flash and am grateful for KoolMoves and this forum.

When it comes to xhtml and css and php I consider myself a somewhat advanced user.

I tried to validate a page created with kool moves (XHTML) and it would not come close . . . syntax must be all lower case.

I am happy with html and I am only recomending that you switch back to the old export (with or without the javascript) method since it is more in support with what KoolMoves is about. And non valid xhtml will bring a lot of people like me out of the woodwork eventually.

Im not too picky about html validating however xhtml is an entirely diffrent story.

also copy and paste from kool moves will mix xhtml and html tags together.

Sorry about going off the tecno deep end and as I said just my 2 cents.

Thanks
Loren Wolsiffer.

[w.brants]

If you want a xhtml compatible way for embedding flash movies you should read this article...

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

[lorenw]

In my examples I have not included a flash movie but just a demonstration of compliant xhtml and non compliant.

The html that was generated by Kool moves has all trace of flash removed and is basically just the format structure as follows.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE></TITLE>
<!-- saved from url=(0013)about:internet -->
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Koolmoves">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<CENTER>
hi
</CENTER>
</BODY>
</HTML>

When this is validated it generates 10 errors plus no char. encoding.
The Kool Moves document is only 13 lines including the saved from comment.

here is the validation link
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wlmark.com%2Ftest.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&outline=1&verbose=1

(Notice where the w3c validator displays "Content-Type: text/html" . . . this should correctly display "Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml" and you cannot do this with the meta tag.)

And here is the KM generated page.
http://www.wlmark.com/test.html

My discussion involves achieving a well formatted, compliant xhtml document.

As for inserting the flash, a better way is to call the .js from an external location and use this method.

document.write('<OBJECT classid . . . etc

Then you have a document that validates and still use object embed.

Believe me I am trying to help. XHTML in its proper format is not an easy subject to understand especially when it comes to the proper mime types and strictness of its formatting.

[necromanthus]

Originally posted by lorenw
here is the validation link
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wlmark.com%2Ftest.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&outline=1&verbose=1
Don't waste your time with this kind of (insignifiant) things.
1) That "validator" doesn't recognize correctly the content of the <OBJECT> tag.
2) the web spiders and bots are not scanning these tags
3) FireFox is growing, but IE6 rulez !
4) Be sure that your site works perfect on IE6.
5) Let's reopen this subject next year (if needed ...)
cheers