Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010

    The thread Introductions to category theory in physics is currently showing “XML Parsing Error” when I try to view it.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010

    What browser?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010

    Firefox 3.6

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010
    • (edited May 16th 2010)
    XML Parsing Error: undefined entity
    Location: http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/Vanilla/nForum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1268&page=1#Item_32
    Line Number 803, Column 28:
    <p>I also don't mind Dummit&Foote; it's what I learned out of as an undergraduate.</p>
    ---------------------------^
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010

    The problem is with ampersands. Meanwhile, you may have just locked yourself out of this topic.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010

    Ampersands are problems (I believe) when using Markdown. I used Text to post that.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_van_Beek
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010

    Firefox does not work for me either, but google’s Chrome does, it displays the error message:

    “error on line 788 at column 35: Entity ’Foote’ not defined”

    but what part of a comment did generate “Foote” I do not know :-) Or did someone enter this explicitly?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010
    I think it could be fixed if Mike inserted a space between & and Foote. Now, it is trying to interpret Foote as a uml character.
    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2010

    That was really unfortunate chose of punctuation! Mike wrote &Foote; which matches the pattern for an entity. The Markdown filter allows entities but doesn’t check that they are valid so let it through. The XML Validator doesn’t check validity of entities either; maybe it should. Anyway, so everything looked at ’&Foote;’ and assumed it was a valid entity, only it wasn’t, so Proper Browsers (like Firefox) complained about invalid XML. I’ve fixed it by altering the ampersand to its correct entity.

    In summary, it was the conjunction of an ampersand and a semi-colon.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010

    Sorry about that. (-: I think the XML validator should really check validity of entities, especially if some browsers will refuse to display the whole page because of a single invalid entity. I think there was just recently a similar issue with Todd writing an incorrect entity in Bourbaki set theory that then locked him out of the page. Chrome gives me an error at the top of the page but still displays it.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010
    • (edited May 17th 2010)

    so Proper Browsers (like Firefox) complained about invalid XML.

    Proper Browsers should also have Proper Error Handling (this is part of the Acid2 and Acid3 tests). If the only pages that rendered were those that validated, your browser wouldn't be able to display the vast majority of websites.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010

    Firefox can display the vast majority of websites, since these are not served as XHTML to begin with. In my experience, the vast majority of websites that are serves as XHTML do validate.

    However, I agree with Harry about how Firefox handles the few websites that are served as XHTML but do not validate. It does follow the written standard (or so I understand), but it is still wrong, even inexcusable. (And that makes the written standard inexcusable.) One needs at least a button ‘Display this page as tag soup.’ to push as an option.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010

    @ Andrew

    If you read this, can you manually edit the original Bourbaki thread (lined in Mike’s comment #10 above) to change &ecute; to &eacute;? Then we could read it again.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTim_van_Beek
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010

    Toby said:

    If you read this, can you manually edit the original Bourbaki thread (lined in Mike’s comment #10 above) to change … Then we could read it again.

    The IE displays the thread, but does not let me post (version 8), but the Chrome browser by google both displays the page and lets me add comments, so you could try that one for the time being.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010

    Opera also has no problems displaying or posting.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010

    Original Bourbaki thread is now viewable again. I’ll have a think about the best way to parse entities - problem is that there’s just so many of them that it might slow things down a bit to go through the lot. I’ll try out some tests.

    In the meantime, I fixed it using Firefox. Even if a page doesn’t display correctly, you can still “view source” and from that you can find the link to the edit-comment link (assuming that you are allowed to edit that comment).

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010

    I’ve added a step to the parser to escape unrecognised entities. So if I write something like &ecute; or &Foote; then it’ll escape them, but if I write a valid one such as é then it’ll be okay.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 17th 2010

    Thank you very much, Andrew – that’s wonderful.

    Has anyone told you today that you rock?