Thanks for your confirmation.
I did some additional tests with more mailboxes. The convertion to XHTML has some effects, because we're trying to produce valid dcouments:
On the other hand, many browsers don't care about the charset and would open and display it anyway, with the good glyphs. The problem is when browsers parse the document through an XML parser. The parser will complain and stop when reaching that character.
Well, there is a solution and it's compatible with all the browsers I know. So let's do the char translation here.
3) Invalid HTML attachments or alternatives.
Let me say it right away. The HTML markup that's being produced by mail clients or web forms is rarely valid. Just including their content to show it in-line produces invalid documents. Some cases are:
The attachment defines a <head>, <dtd> or other things that can only occur once in a valid document and which are already defined by the markup that hypermail produced before including the body.
The attachment is written in HTML and we can't include it anymore using XHTML because it has deprecated elements, or the tags are in upper case (XHTML requires them to be in lower case).
The markup is invalid.
There are some solutions we can take here. I need your feedback and opinion to know which one is best:
I will wait until we discuss this invalid HTML in messages to code a solution. This only affects us when we want to show valid XHTML (which I think should be our goal). And there is a backwards compatibility with HTML anyway.
Is it Ok to go ahead with my commit for XHTML regardless of the points I stated here above?
Thanks for your feedback,
-jose Received on Wed 02 Apr 2003 01:43:59 PM GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat 13 Mar 2010 03:46:12 AM GMT GMT