retitle 1036382 dillo: meta http-equiv makes .xhtml files not be recognized severity 1036382 important thanks
On Sat, 20 May 2023 21:39:29 +0400 Andrey Rakhmatullin <w...@wrar.name> wrote: > Control: tags -1 + unreproducible > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 11:23:19AM +0200, José Luis González wrote: > > When I open an XHTML 1.1 file dillo doesn't recognize it as HTML, > > displaying it as plain text, despite the file being correct XHTML. It > > happens with any extension, including .html and .xhtml. > I can't reproduce this. I took the time to nail it down: - hello-world.html works, but hello-world.xhtml doesn't, for the same content. .xhtml extension just makes dillo not recognize the file as HTML, for any content. This is not the bug I had reported, though but a new one. I will let you file it. - The offending line that made my two .xhtml files not be recognized was <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8" /> which is perfectly valid XHTML 1 as well as HTML, and works in all .html files I have tried, including "hello-world plus http-equiv.html. I attach these new, simplified, test files. You should be able to reproduce it with them. They are as simple as a conforming XHTML 1 document can get, except the one with the added http-equiv, obviously. Please, unmark the report as unreproduceable then. On a personal side, I would have appreciated if you had told me you hadn't tried .xhtml extension. You would have saved me test time. > > Considering XHTML 1.1 is valid HTML 4, which dillo supports, and XHTML > > is nowadays and shall be widely supported, this makes the package > > mostly unusable. > I don't think not supporting XHTML would make it "mostly unusable" but > *shrug*. XHTML 1 is just a subset of HTML 4 that is XML conformant, so it has been basically supported by dillo since its very first release, back in 1999. XHTML 1.0 became a W3C recommendation on 26 January 2000, when dillo was just at version 0.0.4, and a lot of things have happened ever since. XHTML is mentioned in the ChangeLog for version 0.8.4, which was released on the 11 of January 2005, but that was so far as to the validation feature, so it doesn't mean it wasn't supported beforehand. application/xhtml+xml was finally accepted in version 2.2.1 (July 2011), so since then XHTML 1 should have worked flawlessly. My reasoning for the severity is XHTML 1 has been there for ages and is trivial to implement. There are tons of documents tagged as such around on the web, so not supporting it makes it impossible to use dillo nowadays as a general browser, which renders the package unusable except for particular cases, hence mostly unusable. Having found out the bug was just in accepting the http-equiv, and not in any XHTML I document I am lowering severity to important. If I had the time I would volunteer to provide a proper patch, but I don't know this browser's code as well as ELinks', so can't promise anything at this time. It should be trivial for the developers, though. All I ask you is to confirm the bug was not coming from a Debian patch and forward the full report to upstream. That's all.Title: Hello, world!
foo
hello-world.xhtml
Description: application/xhtml
foo
