Closed
Bug 158667
Opened 23 years ago
Closed 23 years ago
Text after <iframe/> is ignored
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect)
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: Jos.vandenOever, Assigned: attinasi)
References
()
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
When using a empty iframe in XHTML Transitional:
<iframe src="http://www.mozilla.org/"/>, the text after the element is ignored,
even though it shouldn't be.
|
Reporter | |
Comment 1•23 years ago
|
||
|
||
Comment 2•23 years ago
|
||
You get HTML parsing with a text/html content-type. If you change it to
application/xhtml+xml (and add the namespace declaration) it works fine.
See: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20020430/
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 3•23 years ago
|
||
|
||
Comment 4•23 years ago
|
||
umm, you forgot the namespace declaration.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
in place of
<html>
It looks great with Content-Type text/xml or application/xhtml+xml
-> INVALID; not a bug
Reporter: Please reopen if you disagree.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
|
||
Comment 5•23 years ago
|
||
verified invalid. The XHTML 1.0 Recommendation, Appendix C, says:
Given an empty instance of an element whose content model is not EMPTY (for
example, an empty title or paragraph) do not use the minimized form (e.g. use
<p> </p> and not <p />).
The same recommendation says:
However, XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C,
"HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media Type
"text/html", as they are compatible with most HTML browsers. This document
makes no recommendation about MIME labeling of other XHTML documents.
The document in question does not follow Appendix C, so it may not be labeled as
text/html (since it is not in fact valid HTML).
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
|
||
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 212670 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
|
|
||
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 246584 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
|
||
Comment 8•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 310959 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #8)
> *** Bug 310959 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
If this is a duplicate of any bug, it is a duplicate of bug 282409.
Additionally, the outer frame validates ok against the w3 validator, as do the
first two emnedded frames. If the markup is valid, I expect it to be rendered
correctly, and not be fobbed off with some spurious and obviously incorrect
excuse. The fact is simple: Mozilla fails to correctly render this markup and
has been incapable of doing so since July 2002 according to this bug.
|
|
||
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 317800 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
|
||
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 318557 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
|
||
Comment 12•19 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 351655 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•