embedded xml doesn't work in firefox

I have a PHP file that generates an XML file (output including header) that I've embedded in a webpage: <embed src="../php-experiment/test.php" type="text/xml" />

This works fine (displays properly) in IE and Chrome. No issues. Firefox, however, says I need a plugin. It doesn't say what plugin, and searching the interwebs has left me numb. The main reason I care is FF is my favorite/default browser.

Help?

 

Ended up just going with an iframe as a workaround.

 

Given that (despite the idiocy that is HTML 5 legitimizing it) you have no business using EMBED any time after 1997 (and REALLY shouldn't have used it prior to that either), might I ask why you weren't using OBJECT? Or if you REALLY needed EMBED for IE5 support why not put OBJECT around the EMBED?

Admittedly, I say the same thing every time I see IFRAME, and wonder why the 5-tards felt the need to introduce two new tags we didn't need...

 

To be honest, I was just playing and thought HTML5 was actually supported (by) now. The fact that it worked in interpig exploder and Chrome, and not in Firefox is what gave me temporary fits (not that Chrome surprised me). I'll try wrapping embed in object for s&g, even though I already have it working well enough (for my personal project). Thanks for the feedback! =)

 

Went with object all by its lonesome (dropped embed altogether). Anything but iframes. =)

 

Something to remember is a LOT of the crap now 'valid' in HTML 5 does NOT actually have to support all formats in all browsers, and in the case of tags like EMBED they were only made 'valid' so that old outdated poorly written sites that COMPLETELY ignored HTML 4 STRICT are now suddenly 'modern'. Just because the tag is supported does not mean it has to support even the simplest of formats -- just look at the idiotic redundancies of AUDIO and VIDEO, and the craptastic cross-browser implementation that results in having to use three separate file formats AND STILL end up putting a flash/object fallback in...

That's really HTML 5's target audience -- all the people who continued to sleaze out HTML 3.2 with the proprietary tags that came out after it, and were slapping 4 tranny on it get to wrap 5 lip-service around the same outdated crap and then pat each-other on the back over how "modern" they are. It's one of the DUMBEST things I've seen involving development over the past 20 years, perhaps even DUMBER than mouth-breathing idiocy like frameworks.

EMBED was rejected from being accepted into 4 STRICT for the same reason BGSOUND wasn't, and why IFRAME and APPLET were deprecated; they are redundant to OBJECT. That's why the new AUDIO and VIDEO tags are stunning examples of them undoing everything 4 STRICT was about by creating new redundancies -- something made outright criminal in intent by forcing vendor lock-in on us all in the form of what video formats browser makers happen to feel like supporting, then telling everyone it's there to fight the "big evil vendor lock-in" that was the industry as a whole on Flash, instead of Apple's, Microsoft and the freetards favorite pets.

You'd almost think the W3C were being run by the people who lost the format wars of WMV vs. QuickTime vs. Realplayer a decade and a half ago. It reminds me of the phrase "can't innovate, litigate!" or in this case, use the core 7 propaganda techniques and modify the specifications (laws) to try and force implementation choice out of the market. :/

OBJECT was supposed to replace ALL non-text content tags, allegedly even IMG was supposed to be on the chopping block so that we weren't forced to use whatever file formats the browser makers happen to feel like implementing. AUDIO and VIDEO is an improvement over this HOW exactly? If instead of crapping out new tags they just rode Microshaft about their failing to implement it properly, got implementation of a common, useful sandboxed way to add codecs and other extensions to OBJECT, maybe we could have had jpeg2000, APNG or MNG support by now (as Quicktime clearly illustrated) or maybe something like webP would have come along sooner!

Top to bottom there's little if anything in HTML 5 that's a legitimate improvement over what 4 STRICT provided, quite the opposite it's taking something simple and throwing more tags at it for no legitimate reason, and throwing their hands up in the air and saying "whatever" over the fact most developers can't seem to grasp what STRICT was about, for, or the improvements it offerred.. There's the new form input TYPE values, MANIFEST, and... uhm...yeah, there's those. Canvas is cool but as a scripting only element has no business even HAVING it's own tag...

Apart from that it's dialing the clock back 18 years which is why when people call HTML 5 "the future" I go "really? Looks like the worst of pre-STRICT practices to me". Hence why I still say it's target audience is the dipshits, halfwits and morons who never extracted their cranium from 1997's rectum... see all the people STILL crapping out sites using IFRAME's and using accessibility rubbish like the TARGET attribute to shove new windows down people's throats whether they like it or not!

Just look at things like HGROUP (that someone FINALLY explained to them was halfwit nonsense and got it pulled from the spec) that prove the people at the WhatWG failed to grasp semantics and the point of STRICT in such a stunning example of EPIC FAIL they had no business even MAKING a markup specification. Of course that's consistent with what some folks that worked on it said, they were documenting what people WERE doing, instead of what people SHOULD be doing... and since most people were still sleazing out HTML 3.2, no wonder it is ZERO real world improvement and chock full of pointless redundancies.

Just love how dialing the clock back 18 years, re-introducing old redundancies, creating new redundancies, and pissing all over semantics in a way that nobody seems to be able to figure out what "proper" means is supposed to magically be better; and utterly confused by how ANYONE is dumb enough to yum up this nonsense in droves that make other bits of noodle-doodle nonsense like faith pale by comparison... making the W3C at this point end up more like a second rate People's temple, Solar Temple or Heaven's gate.

 

Wow! Interesting and passionate perspective, to say the least. In general I agree. One of the things that bothers me the most about HTML5, something you noted, is the need for 3 different video types (and a fallback). Seriously? How is that making my life any easier, let alone saving server storage space (I guess that's just not important anymore now that we have "The Cloud")? Fun to rant with you! =)

 

I just discovered that the object or xml/xsl doesn't work on my smartphone (very old). I suppose I could test to find out which is the problem (if not both). Not that important, as this is nothing I'm going to use in the wild. Still, interesting.

 

If you are trying to do XML transforms via XSL, text/xml should't be working anywhere as your type. You want "type" to be "application/xml" or "application/xhtml+xml" if following the XHTML namespace, and you need to make sure the mime-type being sent from the server reflects that. If it's truly just XML and not XHTML, "application/xml" should be used instead of "text/xml" or browsers shouldn't be trying to run your XSL; ANY of them!

Of course, there's what browsers SHOULD do, and then there's what browsers ACTUALLY do...

Though yeah, I can't see many smartphones supporting it. XSL support is spotty at best in all browsers which is part of why XHTML 1.1 was stillborn -- alongside things like processing stuff client side that should never have been processed client-side in the first place.

 

Just realized I didn't have the directory accessible (in apache config) to my phone. Once I fixed that, the object displayed, untransformed. I'll change the type from text/xml to app/xml. Thanks again for the feedback! =)

 

Okay, finally decided to do the transform server side (only 'cause it would not work in my smartphone - again very old). Thanks for your guidance!