Problem with theme (maybe)
When trying to validate my site, (http://www.tapbjj.com) I get the following warning that I have never seen before.
As this isn't something I have seen in style.css etc. I think it is a problem with the overall theme design.
Anyone ever seen this warning through the w3c validator?
"Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type
The document is being served with the text/html Mime Type which is not a registered media type for the XHTML 1.1 Document Type. The recommended media type for this document is: application/xhtml+xml
Using a wrong media type for a certain document type may confuse the validator and other user agents with respect to the nature of the document, and you may get some erroneous validation errors."
Any thoughts on how I might fix this?
BTW, I am using the Impact
BTW, I am using the Impact theme for Drupal (which seems to have several errors outside of this one...maybe a bad port to 5x?)
Sorry, thought that might be relevant...
This is arguably not a problem
This is arguably not a problem, and is probably deliberate: See http://drupal.org/node/233090#comment-769847 for a discussion and references to w3c
___________________
It’s in the detaιls…
Ok, problem or not, I wanted
Ok, problem or not, I wanted all of my sites to validate, so I took a valid theme's page.tpl.php and stole some code out of it. To get my page to validate, I replaced the following:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN""http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
with
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">and also had to replace:
<script type="text/javascript"><?php /* Needed to avoid Flash of Unstyle Content in IE */ ?> </script>with
<script type="text/javascript"><?php /* Needed to avoid Flash of Unstyle Content in IE */ ?> </script><!--[if IE]><style type="text/css" media="all"> * html #IE img, * html #IE .png { position:relative;behavior: expression((this.runtimeStyle.behavior="none")&&(this.pngSet?this.pngSet=true:(this.nodeName == "IMG" && this.src.toLowerCase().indexOf('.png')>-1?(this.runtimeStyle.backgroundImage = "none", this.runtimeStyle.filter ="progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='" + this.src + "', sizingMethod='image')", this.src = "/<?php print path_to_theme(); ?>/images/transparent.gif"):(this.origBg = this.origBg? this.origBg :this.currentStyle.backgroundImage.toString().replace('url("','').replace('")',''), this.runtimeStyle.filter ="progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='" + this.origBg + "', sizingMethod='crop')", this.runtimeStyle.backgroundImage = "none")),this.pngSet=true) ); }</style><![endif]-->
Don't ask me why this worked, or what I did, because basically I don't know... I took a valid theme and subed out header information that was different until the site pulled "valid" lol
I know, I'm a cobbler lol
BTW, to be honest, and to
BTW, to be honest, and to really expose my ignorance, I thought the MIME type error might have had something to do with the darned navigation links disappearing (though I don't know why) that is listed under Impact's issues. I probably should have just put up that error in the first place, but in most cases that I have encountered, fixing one error often has a trickle down effect and fixes other errors, so I thought I'd just start with the error that was jumping out at me.
XHTML 1.1 vs XHTML 1.0 Strict
DTD XHTML 1.1 vs DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict is also discussed in the thread starting at the comment I referenced above.
I don’t know why the conditional javascript (embedded in css) might be needed for validation, but then this only applies to IE anyway. Does IE 7+ still need this ugly abomination?
___________________
It’s in the detaιls…
Well if it ONLY applies to
Well if it ONLY applies to IE(6,7,...) then that means it applies to over 70% of all internet browsers. What does this mean? It means whatever Microsoft feels is necessary for their browser should be a requirement for validation as it is their customers that make up the vast majority of the populous.
I have IE, FF, Opera, and Safari installed and use IE. Firefox looks like crap (all sites LOOK worst on FF), Safari is to slow on it's initial load even when Google is set as it's homepage. Opera is currently coming in a close second. Looks decent, starts fast, loads pages fast. Whatever the case, it's just like hybrid cars, you can be the best built product and notably safer than all the mass marketed cars and it still wont matter, manufacturing / production / safety standards will still be based off the gas guzzlers from Detroit that the MAJORITY of people are driving.
"Other" browsers besides IE may be perceived as 'better' by some, but they will ALWAYS be the MINORITY.
Anyways, hopefully anyone who wants their sites to be built correctly can utilize the code fix I posted above when using this theme to get proper validation.
Validation?
The code you refer to, is not necessary for validation as it validates when it is interpreted as a comment. Does MS really feel this is necessary for validation? I think they would prefer that png didn’t exist and everyone used 1-bit alpha channel format™.
Very USofA-centric analogy. Are you saying safety standards should only specify something that is already available from a geographically-defined select sub-set of manufacturers, and no innovation or advance should be expected, until one of these considers it cost-effective?
Other browsers comply much more closely to standards, and arguably IE is catching up in this respect too. But many people and organisations cannot install the latest version because of incompatibilities with important sites such as banking or intranet. It is a strong indictment of the situation that IE6 is ‘better’ (which does warrant inverted commas) for most organisations, than its (no apostrophe) successors.
By all means, use DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict, but the rest, I suspect, has nothing to do with validation as a (MINORITY) browser will see it as a comment and ignore it. This is the only reason I said : I was not being dismissive of the most ‘popular’ browser: There is no need to be so defensive.
Note that I made no comment on the quality of IE – only the ugliness of the hack necessary to get IE 6 to display transparent png images in its (still no apostrophe) proprietary way. And I was wondering if this is still necessary for IE 7+. It’s also interesting that MS feels it necessary to provide a standard way to distinguish their browser, and make it easy to implement such hacks.
I wasn't being defensive, I
I wasn't being defensive, I was merely stating that Microsoft calls the shots. In Browsers, in OS(s), in Office software. They are what the 'world' uses with the rare minorities (as I put it in reference exclusively to browsers earlier) occasionally venturing into an Apple store to buy a new iBook because it fits in a manilla folder and it matches their iPhone. Unfortunately, they will probably never figure out how to do any more than surf the internet and print documents (using Office for mac of course). With that in mind, and that is a big subsect of the minority, they do not help break MS's hold. Linux users are so few and far between that they cannot effect change either and as long as both Linux and Mac are not 'user friendly' MS is going to hold the crown.
My own opinion is I use what the masses use and install everything else on test boxes. The reason I do this is because it is likely that whatever I experience using XP and (ugh) Vista/IE7 is going to be what 90% of my clients customers see when they visit the websites. If the ugly hack is required for people using IE 6, then it is a necessity as as much as I wish everyone would switch to IE7, some people are still hesitant.
As for IE7, png now works fine without the hack.
Didn't mean to come off as defensive, I was just saying that if W3C says cow.jpg must be in the HTML code somewhere to validate, then cow.jpg will be in every site I build. The ugly hack is exclusive to MS and yet, until it was inserted, the site would not validate, which is why I indicated MS was 'calling the shots'