Details
-
Type: Improvement
-
Status: Closed
-
Priority: Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Affects Version/s: 2.0-Alpha3
-
Fix Version/s: 2.0.0
-
Component/s: ICE-Components
-
Labels:None
-
Environment:ICEfaces 2 JSF 2
-
Affects:Documentation (User Guide, Ref. Guide, etc.), Sample App./Tutorial, Compatibility/Configuration
-
Workaround Exists:Yes
-
Workaround Description:
Description
Up to Alpha 3 release, the ICEfaces response writer (DOMResponseWriter) was returned hardcoded values for:
content type: text/html
encoding: UTF-8
While this covers a wide range of use cases, it's not adaptable to change by application developers. Changes to the DOMResponseWriter inICE-5664 - to provide better support for determining the proper content type and encoding - makes for a more compatible ICEfaces experience.
However, now that the values are no longer hard coded, browsers can potentially handle the markup differently based on what they accept and prefer. For example Chrome and Safari currently prefer "application/xhtml+xml" over "text/html":
Accept: application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
whereas Firefox prefers "text/html"
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
This is all fine (and better explained here - http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/) except that if the content type "application/xhtml-xml" is returned, then the default namespace must also be included or the page will not render correctly:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
So we need to ensure that we document this requirement and that our example applications are properly adjusted to ensure the default namespace is included in our page markup.
content type: text/html
encoding: UTF-8
While this covers a wide range of use cases, it's not adaptable to change by application developers. Changes to the DOMResponseWriter in
However, now that the values are no longer hard coded, browsers can potentially handle the markup differently based on what they accept and prefer. For example Chrome and Safari currently prefer "application/xhtml+xml" over "text/html":
Accept: application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
whereas Firefox prefers "text/html"
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
This is all fine (and better explained here - http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/) except that if the content type "application/xhtml-xml" is returned, then the default namespace must also be included or the page will not render correctly:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
So we need to ensure that we document this requirement and that our example applications are properly adjusted to ensure the default namespace is included in our page markup.
Improving subject line