[Webkit-unassigned] [Bug 6314] Unclosed <style> element in <head> makes page completely blank

Sat Dec 31 12:23:47 PST 2005

http://bugzilla.opendarwin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6314

------- Additional Comments From camillo.lists at gmail.com  2005-12-31 12:23 -------
You're assuming too much. ;-) It's not my server: I encountered this bug on a website, and stripped it 
down to a smaller text case for your convenience. The bug reappears when loading the file from the 
HD, because of the html extension. I have no way of changing the way that server (or most other 
servers on the internet) serve XHTML content. Regardless:

1) is it wise to ignore the doctype specified inside the file and trust the HTTP content-type instead? The 
doctype declaration is put in by the author, while the content-type is chosen by a webserver which is 
often misconfigured, as you all know: it seems to me that the former should be considered more 
reliable.

2) The W3C HTML Validator has no complaints about an XML file uploaded with an .html extension, or 
served as text/html: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.opendarwin.org%
2Fattachment.cgi%3Fid%3D5400
I understand that the validator is not the source of all wisdom, but most webmasters will be satisfied 
once it passes their pages. What am I supposed to tell them? "Go fiddle with your web server's settings 
because Safari thinks your XHTML files are HTML 4.0, even though you put an explicit doctype 
declaration inside them?"

3) I'm going to go out on a limb here, and I haven't checked the standards recently, but wasn't the 
XHTML syntax meant to be mostly compatible with HTML? Is it really so crazy to serve XHTML as text/
html, expecting XHTML-compliant browsers to handle it correctly (recognizing it through the doctype), 
and older browsers to make a best effort at rendering it as HTML, instead of deciding to download it to 
disk because it has an unrecognized MIME type?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.opendarwin.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.