Dopple
09-01-2004, 04:37 AM
Just been reading about this and was wondering, should the <!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM> attribute be in lowercase letters?
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : XHTML question
sharkey
09-01-2004, 05:38 AM
Nope the doctype can be in caps but use this doctype if your going to be using xhtml -
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
Dopple
09-01-2004, 05:51 AM
Thanks!:D
Charles
09-01-2004, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by sharkey
Nope the doctype can be in caps but use this doctype if your going to be using xhtml -
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
There are four valid XHTML DOCTYPEs, why that one?
The DOCTYPE, and the XML declaration are a part of the document's prolog, different rules apply. The DOCTYPE points to the DTD which in defines the elements. But as XML is case sensitive, I think that you would do well to be careful about the case.
From the spec:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
Might be OK, but why mess with what you know is right:
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd xhtml 1.0 strict//en"
"http://www.w3.org/tr/xhtml1/dtd/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
Certainly wrong, the second token must match the root element and XML is case sensitive as are URLs:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 STRICT//EN"
"HTTP://WWW.W3.ORG/TR/XHTML1/DTD/XHTML1-STRICT.DTD">
Nope the doctype can be in caps but use this doctype if your going to be using xhtml -
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
There are four valid XHTML DOCTYPEs, why that one?
The DOCTYPE, and the XML declaration are a part of the document's prolog, different rules apply. The DOCTYPE points to the DTD which in defines the elements. But as XML is case sensitive, I think that you would do well to be careful about the case.
From the spec:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
Might be OK, but why mess with what you know is right:
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd xhtml 1.0 strict//en"
"http://www.w3.org/tr/xhtml1/dtd/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
Certainly wrong, the second token must match the root element and XML is case sensitive as are URLs:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 STRICT//EN"
"HTTP://WWW.W3.ORG/TR/XHTML1/DTD/XHTML1-STRICT.DTD">
Dopple
09-01-2004, 06:00 AM
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Hmmmm. Could one of you have a look at my site source and tell me what I would have to use to get it XHTML transitional? This is flying right over my head. :o
Hmmmm. Could one of you have a look at my site source and tell me what I would have to use to get it XHTML transitional? This is flying right over my head. :o
sharkey
09-01-2004, 06:06 AM
Becuase isnt it the most up to date xhtml doctype.
Dopple
09-01-2004, 06:52 AM
In an attempt to make my website XHTML transitonal I have royally buggered it up. Can someone please help me out here by telling me how to actually get it transitional or if I should just go back to making it function in HTML? I'd like to get it in XHTML but I'm not sure if the results are worth the hair loss!
Charles
09-01-2004, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by sharkey
Becuase isnt it the most up to date xhtml doctype. They're all up to date, 1.1 was the last one written, but that doesn't mean that's the one you should use.
* XHTML™ 1.0 Strict is nothing other than an XML version of HTML 4.01 Strict.
* XHTML™ 1.0 Transitional is nothing other than an XML version of HTML 4.01 Transitional.
* XHTML™ 1.0 Frameset is nothing other than an XML version of HTML 4.01 Frameset.
* XHTML™ 1.1 is simply the XHTML™ 1.0 Strict DTD re-written in a modular way to make it easier to use it as the foundation when you make your own mark-up language.
Each one is there for a particular reason. But there is no advantage whatsoever in usung XHTML™ over HTML on the internet. But there are a bunch of disadvantages, however.
Now, there is great advantage in using the Strict DTDs, so much that I would caution that one ought never to use the Transitional unless you are using frames and need the "target" attribute.
Having written my own mark-up language I can tell you that I am convinced that there is an error in the XHTML 1.1 DTD. At least it uses some fancy tricks that aren't supported by any of the XML parsers I've tried.
The best way to convert from HTML to XHTML™ is to use HTML Tidy (http://tidy.sourceforge.net/) or some othe HTML parser.
Becuase isnt it the most up to date xhtml doctype. They're all up to date, 1.1 was the last one written, but that doesn't mean that's the one you should use.
* XHTML™ 1.0 Strict is nothing other than an XML version of HTML 4.01 Strict.
* XHTML™ 1.0 Transitional is nothing other than an XML version of HTML 4.01 Transitional.
* XHTML™ 1.0 Frameset is nothing other than an XML version of HTML 4.01 Frameset.
* XHTML™ 1.1 is simply the XHTML™ 1.0 Strict DTD re-written in a modular way to make it easier to use it as the foundation when you make your own mark-up language.
Each one is there for a particular reason. But there is no advantage whatsoever in usung XHTML™ over HTML on the internet. But there are a bunch of disadvantages, however.
Now, there is great advantage in using the Strict DTDs, so much that I would caution that one ought never to use the Transitional unless you are using frames and need the "target" attribute.
Having written my own mark-up language I can tell you that I am convinced that there is an error in the XHTML 1.1 DTD. At least it uses some fancy tricks that aren't supported by any of the XML parsers I've tried.
The best way to convert from HTML to XHTML™ is to use HTML Tidy (http://tidy.sourceforge.net/) or some othe HTML parser.
sharkey
09-01-2004, 07:10 AM
Thanks for that info charles:)
i usually just use the xhtml 1.0 strict but many have tried to convince me to the 1.1
i usually just use the xhtml 1.0 strict but many have tried to convince me to the 1.1
Charles
09-01-2004, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by sharkey
Thanks for that info charles:)
i usually just use the xhtml 1.0 strict but many have tried to convince me to the 1.1 But why are you bothering with XHTML™ in the first place?
Thanks for that info charles:)
i usually just use the xhtml 1.0 strict but many have tried to convince me to the 1.1 But why are you bothering with XHTML™ in the first place?
ajimenez
09-01-2004, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Charles
But why are you bothering with XHTML in the first place?
...yes, good question.
May I also ask why a namespace is put into the html tag? I see some sites do this when xhtml is being used.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
But why are you bothering with XHTML in the first place?
...yes, good question.
May I also ask why a namespace is put into the html tag? I see some sites do this when xhtml is being used.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
sharkey
09-01-2004, 08:55 AM
Because it is much stricter than html thus decreasing the possibility of accessibility woes.
ajimenez
09-01-2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by sharkey
Because it is much stricter than html thus decreasing the possibility of accessibility woes.
As apposed to not having it and only using (relying on) the XHTML doctype?
Because it is much stricter than html thus decreasing the possibility of accessibility woes.
As apposed to not having it and only using (relying on) the XHTML doctype?
Charles
09-01-2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by sharkey
Because it is much stricter than html thus decreasing the possibility of accessibility woes. That is quite true of the Strict DTDs but not true of XHTML™ as opposed to HTML. Perhaps you've confused the two issues.
Because it is much stricter than html thus decreasing the possibility of accessibility woes. That is quite true of the Strict DTDs but not true of XHTML™ as opposed to HTML. Perhaps you've confused the two issues.
sharkey
09-01-2004, 10:08 AM
Well with html and xhtml ive only ever used strict dtd's. How can i have confused the two - its stricter say for example you have to close all tags unlike in html you can leave say the line break open <br>
Charles
09-01-2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by ajimenez
...yes, good question.
May I also ask why a namespace is put into the html tag? I see some sites do this when xhtml is being used.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> There are two times that you need to use XHTML™, when you have two different mark-up languages on the same page and when you want to apply an XSLT stylesheet. And with XSLT you are mixing two mark up languages on the same page. The problem comes when the two languages share any of the same elements. To solve for this the namespace applies a prefix to an element. In XHTML™ there is no "title" element, it's really an "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml:title" element. The namespace declaration is required.
...yes, good question.
May I also ask why a namespace is put into the html tag? I see some sites do this when xhtml is being used.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> There are two times that you need to use XHTML™, when you have two different mark-up languages on the same page and when you want to apply an XSLT stylesheet. And with XSLT you are mixing two mark up languages on the same page. The problem comes when the two languages share any of the same elements. To solve for this the namespace applies a prefix to an element. In XHTML™ there is no "title" element, it's really an "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml:title" element. The namespace declaration is required.
Charles
09-01-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by sharkey
Well with html and xhtml ive only ever used strict dtd's. How can i have confused the two - its stricter say for example you have to close all tags unlike in html you can leave say the line break open <br> But that has absolutely nothing to do wit accessibility. Every parser can tell from the DTD that the BR element is empty and has no closing tag.
Well with html and xhtml ive only ever used strict dtd's. How can i have confused the two - its stricter say for example you have to close all tags unlike in html you can leave say the line break open <br> But that has absolutely nothing to do wit accessibility. Every parser can tell from the DTD that the BR element is empty and has no closing tag.
sharkey
09-01-2004, 10:32 AM
Yes but it also stops you well if you want a valid page from using say the target attribute which does has something to do with accessiblity such as stupid pop-up windows.
Charles
09-01-2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by sharkey
Yes but it also stops you well if you want a valid page from using say the target attribute which does has something to do with accessiblity such as stupid pop-up windows. Except that the "target" attribute is just as valid in XHTML™ 1.0 as it is in HTML 4.01.
Yes but it also stops you well if you want a valid page from using say the target attribute which does has something to do with accessiblity such as stupid pop-up windows. Except that the "target" attribute is just as valid in XHTML™ 1.0 as it is in HTML 4.01.
MstrBob
09-01-2004, 11:10 AM
Personally, I use XHTML 1.1 I find that the strict rules keep me in line from slipping to any presentational markup ;) . But also, I've been working a lot lately with XML, and since XHTML is based on XML, and since the syntax are the same, I just find it easier. I switched when I found myself one day closing a <img> tag with a /> Then I decided I may as well just move to XHTML.
Plus, I figure, since technology does move, just like barely no one uses something like HTML 2.0, one day we will have moved on to something like XHTML 4.0 or similar. But for me, really, it's just my work with XML/PHP that I switched. I feel reassured knowing that I've closed all tags.
Plus, I figure, since technology does move, just like barely no one uses something like HTML 2.0, one day we will have moved on to something like XHTML 4.0 or similar. But for me, really, it's just my work with XML/PHP that I switched. I feel reassured knowing that I've closed all tags.
ray326
09-01-2004, 12:10 PM
If the straight jacket fits . . . :cool:
David Harrison
09-01-2004, 02:24 PM
It seems like your urging people not to use XHTML here Charles, are you OK? :confused:
Charles
09-01-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by lavalamp
It seems like your urging people not to use XHTML here Charles, are you OK? :confused: The web has enough real rules that we don't need to go making up new ones. But the fact remains, as far as publishing documents on the web is concerned, there is absolutely no advantage in using XHTML™ and some dis-advantages. And when I ponder just how many beginners I see mixing the two and just how many web page adepts I see who haven't bothered to understand what XHTML™ is all about I would say that yes, on this board we should restrict XHTML™ to the XML forum.
It seems like your urging people not to use XHTML here Charles, are you OK? :confused: The web has enough real rules that we don't need to go making up new ones. But the fact remains, as far as publishing documents on the web is concerned, there is absolutely no advantage in using XHTML™ and some dis-advantages. And when I ponder just how many beginners I see mixing the two and just how many web page adepts I see who haven't bothered to understand what XHTML™ is all about I would say that yes, on this board we should restrict XHTML™ to the XML forum.
Paul Jr
09-01-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Charles
Except that the "target" attribute is just as valid in XHTML™ 1.0 as it is in HTML 4.01.
It's valid XHTML Transitional -- if you're going XHTML, what's the point of going Transitional?
Originally posted by Charles
But the fact remains, as far as publishing documents on the web is concerned, there is absolutely no advantage in using XHTML™ and some dis-advantages.
Dis-advantages? I'd be interested in knowing what these dis-advantages are…
Except that the "target" attribute is just as valid in XHTML™ 1.0 as it is in HTML 4.01.
It's valid XHTML Transitional -- if you're going XHTML, what's the point of going Transitional?
Originally posted by Charles
But the fact remains, as far as publishing documents on the web is concerned, there is absolutely no advantage in using XHTML™ and some dis-advantages.
Dis-advantages? I'd be interested in knowing what these dis-advantages are…
redijedi
09-01-2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by sharkey
Because it is much stricter than html thus decreasing the possibility of accessibility woes.
Had to jump in here cuz I have been thinking about this a bit. I think the newer XHTML dtd's are coming into contention with accessibility/usability. Since the target attribute of the anchor tag has disappeared you must use javascript to get a new window. Javascript for navigation is a big nono. Therefore, you are forced to either use js, or drop back a dtd to transitional.
Because it is much stricter than html thus decreasing the possibility of accessibility woes.
Had to jump in here cuz I have been thinking about this a bit. I think the newer XHTML dtd's are coming into contention with accessibility/usability. Since the target attribute of the anchor tag has disappeared you must use javascript to get a new window. Javascript for navigation is a big nono. Therefore, you are forced to either use js, or drop back a dtd to transitional.
MstrBob
09-01-2004, 05:33 PM
*sigh* Look, the target attribute is perfectly valid when you use it with the Frameset DTD (both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0) It's meant for that. It's used to target a certain frame, and should be kept as such. Javascript for navigation is only wrong when you rely on it. If a visitor can use all of your links and navigate without it, there's nothing wrong with it. Think of a pop-up as being another little "enhancement". If you have a link like this:
<a href="newpage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false">New Page</a>
There's nothing wrong with that. It will open in a new window for people with Javascript (at leaste 87% of the internet) and those without it/with it disabled can still go to the page.
<a href="newpage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false">New Page</a>
There's nothing wrong with that. It will open in a new window for people with Javascript (at leaste 87% of the internet) and those without it/with it disabled can still go to the page.
sharkey
09-01-2004, 05:35 PM
And when I ponder just how many beginners I see mixing the two and just how many web page adepts I see who haven't bothered to understand what XHTML is all about
I dont know if that was directed to me but yes im a beginner but do you realise that it isnt the fact i havent bothered to learn what xhtml its all about. beginner = low knowledge and im trying my hardest to gain all the knowledge.
I dont know if that was directed to me but yes im a beginner but do you realise that it isnt the fact i havent bothered to learn what xhtml its all about. beginner = low knowledge and im trying my hardest to gain all the knowledge.
redijedi
09-01-2004, 05:42 PM
That's all well and good if you have to option to allow users to fall back on typical anchor behavior. I happen to work for a government agency where the policy (legally binding) literally requires that the page be a pop-up. This issue came up since our redesign encouraged XHTML validation. We are currently working towards a change in policy.
I understand that this will be unavoidable in the future when XML replaces all forms of Web browser markup (HTML, XHTML, etc.). However for the here and now the target attribute is preferable in our situation (and many others I imagine).
I understand that this will be unavoidable in the future when XML replaces all forms of Web browser markup (HTML, XHTML, etc.). However for the here and now the target attribute is preferable in our situation (and many others I imagine).
MstrBob
09-01-2004, 05:51 PM
You see, pieces of junk like IE, which are currently hindering the usage of new web technologies create some of these issues. *sigh* If IE had a standards compliant engine, it would encrouage more CSS developement, which leads to more accessibility. But, it still is perfectly fine to use XHTML 1.0 Transitional, and XHTML Frameset, and HTML 4.01 Strict, ect.
Look, basically, the target attribute opening a new window is, IMO, another case of HTML doing what it shouldn't be doing. How does marking up a document relate to controlling the user's browser? It doesn't. HTML by it's nature is and should be static. It's not it's job to be interactive. It's there to mark up and describe our documents. CSS controls there appearance and browser side scripting makes sites interactive. It is easy to get pissed at the W3C for depreciating it in XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1 because there are no other solutions as well supported as it. But bottom line is: they're right. HTML is doing what it shouldn't be. And now, you think someone with a audio browser wants pop-ups? I've never used one, but judging from programs such as lynx: no. Javascript makes it interactive. However, disabled people like the blind don't need pop-ups to make it better for them or whatever. I imagine that it'd be a hinderance for them. Thus, the javascript I mentioned would seem to be more accessible, IMHO.
Look, basically, the target attribute opening a new window is, IMO, another case of HTML doing what it shouldn't be doing. How does marking up a document relate to controlling the user's browser? It doesn't. HTML by it's nature is and should be static. It's not it's job to be interactive. It's there to mark up and describe our documents. CSS controls there appearance and browser side scripting makes sites interactive. It is easy to get pissed at the W3C for depreciating it in XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1 because there are no other solutions as well supported as it. But bottom line is: they're right. HTML is doing what it shouldn't be. And now, you think someone with a audio browser wants pop-ups? I've never used one, but judging from programs such as lynx: no. Javascript makes it interactive. However, disabled people like the blind don't need pop-ups to make it better for them or whatever. I imagine that it'd be a hinderance for them. Thus, the javascript I mentioned would seem to be more accessible, IMHO.
redijedi
09-01-2004, 06:04 PM
*sigh* you've got some good points. However, you can kill the remedial XHTML 101 regurgitation that hounds every question regarding xhtml. I have no beef with the W3C. *sigh* the only *sigh* point I am trying to make is why limit xhtml since it is only a stop gap *sigh* until full xml support is widely available *sigh*. There seems to be *sigh* little reason to move towards xhtml as a *sigh* bridge technology. If you don't believe me, you can read *sigh* Eric Meyers (CSS Guru) own words (http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/07/28/creative-dissidence/) on the matter.
If the lack of target is such a *sigh* good idea in your honest opinion, why did the W3C (in its infinite wisdom) keep the purely visual <hr /> element?
I was just rereading this and I apologize for all the *sighs*. I'm just kidding. However, if it's so tedious for you to reply to my post, then don't.
If the lack of target is such a *sigh* good idea in your honest opinion, why did the W3C (in its infinite wisdom) keep the purely visual <hr /> element?
I was just rereading this and I apologize for all the *sighs*. I'm just kidding. However, if it's so tedious for you to reply to my post, then don't.
MstrBob
09-01-2004, 06:17 PM
I don't know if we'll move to XML, at leaste, not for a considerable time. After all, HTML was, itself, a simplified form of SGML. I don't know about this. But since the original idea was to make it as simple as possible, but, the browser wars of NN vs IE created many a probelm with HTML as we know it. So the W3C is trying to bring us back to an idea of simplicy. And, of course you know that a valid, semantic (X)HTML/CSS layout is very easy to read/understand. But so many of us learn at first the wrong way. But there's nothing wrong with XHTML, IMO. And what's wrong with using it?
And I never said XHTML was better than HTML (if I came across that way, it's not my intention.) I like the idea of people using XHTML strict and XHTML 1.1 because it basically forces people to write better code. But one could write code just as semantic, accessible, and valid as an XHTML 1.1 site in HTML 4.01 Transitional. But for too many, HTML 4.01 Transitional incourages laziness.
However, XHTML browsers are smaller than HTML browsers, and this along with the movement to XML are why I feel that it is forseeable (sp?) that HTML will be phased out.
Oh, and as for <hr /> and <br /> (<hr> and <br>). Yeah, I don't particularly see an issue with <br />. As for <hr>, it has no real meaning, and it marks up no data. It really is a useless tag, and if I were on the W3C XHTML group, I'd have it depreceated. But as I'm not, I can't say why it isn't.
And I never said XHTML was better than HTML (if I came across that way, it's not my intention.) I like the idea of people using XHTML strict and XHTML 1.1 because it basically forces people to write better code. But one could write code just as semantic, accessible, and valid as an XHTML 1.1 site in HTML 4.01 Transitional. But for too many, HTML 4.01 Transitional incourages laziness.
However, XHTML browsers are smaller than HTML browsers, and this along with the movement to XML are why I feel that it is forseeable (sp?) that HTML will be phased out.
Oh, and as for <hr /> and <br /> (<hr> and <br>). Yeah, I don't particularly see an issue with <br />. As for <hr>, it has no real meaning, and it marks up no data. It really is a useless tag, and if I were on the W3C XHTML group, I'd have it depreceated. But as I'm not, I can't say why it isn't.
redijedi
09-01-2004, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by MstrBob
I don't know if we'll move to XML, at leaste, not for a considerable time.
I agree with your post's topics. I was hoping, however, that we could move towards xml more quickly (in my heart of hearts). In a new browser we can already duplicate all (I'm fairly certain) the abilities of HTML with css/xml.
I know this is contrary to my previous post, but that's just a matter of constraints I have at my current job, not how I want things to be.
I assume that browsers will maintain backwards compatibility. With 5.0 and lower browsers accounting for less and less of the user base, I'm almost tempted to begin writing in xml/css and let the older browser community be damned.
Then again, we all know how quickly these things move. I regularly update pages using HTML 3.2 dtds.
A boy can dream...
I don't know if we'll move to XML, at leaste, not for a considerable time.
I agree with your post's topics. I was hoping, however, that we could move towards xml more quickly (in my heart of hearts). In a new browser we can already duplicate all (I'm fairly certain) the abilities of HTML with css/xml.
I know this is contrary to my previous post, but that's just a matter of constraints I have at my current job, not how I want things to be.
I assume that browsers will maintain backwards compatibility. With 5.0 and lower browsers accounting for less and less of the user base, I'm almost tempted to begin writing in xml/css and let the older browser community be damned.
Then again, we all know how quickly these things move. I regularly update pages using HTML 3.2 dtds.
A boy can dream...
Fang
09-02-2004, 01:34 AM
MstrBob wrote:
...and if I were on the W3C XHTML group, I'd have it (<hr>) depreceated
In xhtml2 <hr> is to be replaced by <separator>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20021211/mod-presentation.html#s_presentationmodule_issue_0
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#edef_structural_separator
...and if I were on the W3C XHTML group, I'd have it (<hr>) depreceated
In xhtml2 <hr> is to be replaced by <separator>
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xhtml2-20021211/mod-presentation.html#s_presentationmodule_issue_0
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#edef_structural_separator
Dopple
09-02-2004, 07:37 AM
A question. I've managed to get my website (http://www.freewebs.com/bawbag/) working using XHTML but I'm validating it and it says there is a lot wrong with the freewebs ad bar. Can someone tweak it so that it will not throw up **** loads of errors on the validator? I'll submit the code to freewebs and make sure the person gets full credit for it.
<!--FreeWebs FreeBar Code Begin-->
<p>
<table width="80%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#000000" align="center">
<font size="2" color="#ffffff" face="verdana, arial">
This site is hosted for free by FreeWebs.com.
</font>
<a href="http://members.freewebs.com/" target="_blank">
<font size=2 color="#0000ff">
Click here to get your own free website.
</font>
</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</p>
<!--FreeWebs FreeBar Code End-->
<!--FreeWebs FreeBar Code Begin-->
<p>
<table width="80%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#000000" align="center">
<font size="2" color="#ffffff" face="verdana, arial">
This site is hosted for free by FreeWebs.com.
</font>
<a href="http://members.freewebs.com/" target="_blank">
<font size=2 color="#0000ff">
Click here to get your own free website.
</font>
</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</p>
<!--FreeWebs FreeBar Code End-->
Fang
09-02-2004, 08:10 AM
I'll submit the code to freewebs and make sure the person gets full credit for it.
I'm sure this has been done before, but freewebs can not be xxxxed to change it!
I'm sure this has been done before, but freewebs can not be xxxxed to change it!
Charles
09-02-2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Dopple
A question. I've managed to get my website (http://www.freewebs.com/bawbag/) working using XHTML but I'm validating it and it says there is a lot wrong with the freewebs ad bar. Can someone tweak it so that it will not throw up **** loads of errors on the validator? I'll submit the code to freewebs and make sure the person gets full credit for it.
<!--FreeWebs FreeBar Code Begin-->
<p>
<table width="80%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#000000" align="center">
<font size="2" color="#ffffff" face="verdana, arial">
This site is hosted for free by FreeWebs.com.
</font>
<a href="http://members.freewebs.com/" target="_blank">
<font size=2 color="#0000ff">
Click here to get your own free website.
</font>
</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</p>
<!--FreeWebs FreeBar Code End--> That should validate just fine if you use XHTML™ 1.0 Transitional
A question. I've managed to get my website (http://www.freewebs.com/bawbag/) working using XHTML but I'm validating it and it says there is a lot wrong with the freewebs ad bar. Can someone tweak it so that it will not throw up **** loads of errors on the validator? I'll submit the code to freewebs and make sure the person gets full credit for it.
<!--FreeWebs FreeBar Code Begin-->
<p>
<table width="80%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#000000" align="center">
<font size="2" color="#ffffff" face="verdana, arial">
This site is hosted for free by FreeWebs.com.
</font>
<a href="http://members.freewebs.com/" target="_blank">
<font size=2 color="#0000ff">
Click here to get your own free website.
</font>
</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</p>
<!--FreeWebs FreeBar Code End--> That should validate just fine if you use XHTML™ 1.0 Transitional
Dopple
09-02-2004, 08:55 AM
Cool. I was using Strict. I'll sort that out just now.:D
Dopple
09-02-2004, 09:04 AM
Almost there :) just 1 error message left.
Line 49, column 76: document type does not allow element "table" here; missing one of "object", "applet", "map", "iframe", "button", "ins", "del" start-tag
<...pacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
Any ideas?
Line 49, column 76: document type does not allow element "table" here; missing one of "object", "applet", "map", "iframe", "button", "ins", "del" start-tag
<...pacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
Any ideas?
Charles
09-02-2004, 09:25 AM
Sorry about that … I missed that they were trying to put a TABLE inside of a P element. There's nothing that you can do, really. That's invalid in HTML as well.
Dopple
09-02-2004, 09:31 AM
It's cool. It was all buggering up becuase I was using Strict instead of Transitional. Working TENTATIVELY now. Just boning up on how to sort that out then I'll do a wee jig because I'll be so chuffed with myself.
David Harrison
09-02-2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Charles
The web has enough real rules that we don't need to go making up new ones. But the fact remains, as far as publishing documents on the web is concerned, there is absolutely no advantage in using XHTML™ and some dis-advantages.The way I see it, XHTML makes things easier, there's less to learn because there's fewer tags. Granted you have to learn CSS as well but you should be using that anyway.
Originally posted by Charles
And when I ponder just how many beginners I see mixing the two and just how many web page adepts I see who haven't bothered to understand what XHTML™ is all about I would say that yes, on this board we should restrict XHTML™ to the XML forum. Well then I guess it's our job to help these beginners understand XHTML. I didn't know XHTML, hadn't heard of CSS and relied heavily on JavaScript when I came here, now I like to think that my pages are clean, semantic and accessible. How did I learn? I learned from the people on there forums (and 1 book).
Originally posted by Dopple
Can someone tweak it so that it will not throw up **** loads of errors on the validator?If I remember rightly the freewebs ad bar is created where-ever you place their include code.
Therefore, if you simply don't use their include code and instead create your own markup and CSS to replicate it you'll be sitting pretty.
The web has enough real rules that we don't need to go making up new ones. But the fact remains, as far as publishing documents on the web is concerned, there is absolutely no advantage in using XHTML™ and some dis-advantages.The way I see it, XHTML makes things easier, there's less to learn because there's fewer tags. Granted you have to learn CSS as well but you should be using that anyway.
Originally posted by Charles
And when I ponder just how many beginners I see mixing the two and just how many web page adepts I see who haven't bothered to understand what XHTML™ is all about I would say that yes, on this board we should restrict XHTML™ to the XML forum. Well then I guess it's our job to help these beginners understand XHTML. I didn't know XHTML, hadn't heard of CSS and relied heavily on JavaScript when I came here, now I like to think that my pages are clean, semantic and accessible. How did I learn? I learned from the people on there forums (and 1 book).
Originally posted by Dopple
Can someone tweak it so that it will not throw up **** loads of errors on the validator?If I remember rightly the freewebs ad bar is created where-ever you place their include code.
Therefore, if you simply don't use their include code and instead create your own markup and CSS to replicate it you'll be sitting pretty.
Charles
09-02-2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by lavalamp
The way I see it, XHTML makes things easier, there's less to learn because there's fewer tags. Granted you have to learn CSS as well but you should be using that anyway. You appear to not understand what XHTML is, you've confused it with the Strict DTDs.
XHTML™ 1.0 and HTML 4.01 have exactly the same number of "tags".
There is no advantage whatsoever in using XHTML™ over HTML on the web.
The way I see it, XHTML makes things easier, there's less to learn because there's fewer tags. Granted you have to learn CSS as well but you should be using that anyway. You appear to not understand what XHTML is, you've confused it with the Strict DTDs.
XHTML™ 1.0 and HTML 4.01 have exactly the same number of "tags".
There is no advantage whatsoever in using XHTML™ over HTML on the web.
David Harrison
09-02-2004, 12:19 PM
When I say XHTML, I usually mean XHTML 1.1 since using any other version apart from XHTML 1.0 Strict is pointless, and even then why not gp all the way to XHTML 1.1?
OK, ignoring the fact that XHTML (1.1) has fewer tags (therefore less presentational markup) and it's more strict which aids in the creating of well-formed pages, what makes HTML so much better than XHTML?
OK, ignoring the fact that XHTML (1.1) has fewer tags (therefore less presentational markup) and it's more strict which aids in the creating of well-formed pages, what makes HTML so much better than XHTML?
Stephen Philbin
09-02-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by ajimenez
...yes, good question.
May I also ask why a namespace is put into the html tag? I see some sites do this when xhtml is being used.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
Correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't the slightest whiff of an xml namespace send IE hurtling into that chaotic abyss that is it's god-forsaken "Quirks mode"?
As we know IE fakes understanding what a DTD is and simply jumps into what is very loosely termed as its "standards mode" as soon as it hits <!doctype. Regardless of what comes after it. Be that <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
or
<!doctype to show that IE sucks big hairy ones>
But as soon as a name space is hit it jumps back. So by using the most strict of all DTD's, you force IE into that popular black hole of bad code compliance.
...yes, good question.
May I also ask why a namespace is put into the html tag? I see some sites do this when xhtml is being used.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
Correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't the slightest whiff of an xml namespace send IE hurtling into that chaotic abyss that is it's god-forsaken "Quirks mode"?
As we know IE fakes understanding what a DTD is and simply jumps into what is very loosely termed as its "standards mode" as soon as it hits <!doctype. Regardless of what comes after it. Be that <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
or
<!doctype to show that IE sucks big hairy ones>
But as soon as a name space is hit it jumps back. So by using the most strict of all DTD's, you force IE into that popular black hole of bad code compliance.
MstrBob
09-02-2004, 02:40 PM
You're wrong. :p Namespace has nothing to do with it. The problem arrises if you start off with an XML declaration instead of a DTD. (Expected since IE doesn't even understand the DTD). So:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
That's quirks mode. But:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" dir="ltr">
That puts IE in "standards" mode.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
That's quirks mode. But:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" dir="ltr">
That puts IE in "standards" mode.
Stephen Philbin
09-02-2004, 03:06 PM
Ah yeah that's the fisher. I knew it was something to do with using some part of XML near the DTD.
David Harrison
09-02-2004, 03:31 PM
I deliberately use that xml prologue to send IE6 into quirks, that way I don't have to differentiate between IE5 and IE6 in my CSS, I just write the IE rules:
#something{
ie:blows;
}
Then I write the non-IE rules:
html>body #something{
gecko:good;
opera:good;
}
Of course, I try and avoid hacks at all costs, but there are certain times when I might as well just be smashing my head into a wall for all the good it'll do.
#something{
ie:blows;
}
Then I write the non-IE rules:
html>body #something{
gecko:good;
opera:good;
}
Of course, I try and avoid hacks at all costs, but there are certain times when I might as well just be smashing my head into a wall for all the good it'll do.
IncaWarrior
09-02-2004, 03:46 PM
with XHTML 1.1 you can use <ruby> tags too.
Charles
09-02-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by lavalamp
When I say XHTML, I usually mean XHTML 1.1 since using any other version apart from XHTML 1.0 Strict is pointless, and even then why not gp all the way to XHTML 1.1?
OK, ignoring the fact that XHTML (1.1) has fewer tags (therefore less presentational markup) and it's more strict which aids in the creating of well-formed pages, what makes HTML so much better than XHTML? XHTML™ 1.1 is supposed to be the same as XHTML™ 1.0 Strict but employing all kinds of tricks to make it modular so you can use the parts to build other mark up languages. Only it doesn't work. Try using it with a validating parser.
Ignoring that we still have the fact that, on the web, XHTML™ 1.0 and XHTML™ 1.1 are essentially the same as HTML 4.01. At least they're supposed to be. The problem is that you can do a bunch of stuff with XHTML™ that can confuse HTML browsers. And when you consider how many people 1) get XHTML™ wrong and 2) mix XHTML™ and HTML freely in their documents, we ought to just get rid if the thing.
When I say XHTML, I usually mean XHTML 1.1 since using any other version apart from XHTML 1.0 Strict is pointless, and even then why not gp all the way to XHTML 1.1?
OK, ignoring the fact that XHTML (1.1) has fewer tags (therefore less presentational markup) and it's more strict which aids in the creating of well-formed pages, what makes HTML so much better than XHTML? XHTML™ 1.1 is supposed to be the same as XHTML™ 1.0 Strict but employing all kinds of tricks to make it modular so you can use the parts to build other mark up languages. Only it doesn't work. Try using it with a validating parser.
Ignoring that we still have the fact that, on the web, XHTML™ 1.0 and XHTML™ 1.1 are essentially the same as HTML 4.01. At least they're supposed to be. The problem is that you can do a bunch of stuff with XHTML™ that can confuse HTML browsers. And when you consider how many people 1) get XHTML™ wrong and 2) mix XHTML™ and HTML freely in their documents, we ought to just get rid if the thing.
Charles
09-02-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
with XHTML 1.1 you can use <ruby> tags too. The "ruby (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/)" element is pretty cool, but is browser support high enough yet?
with XHTML 1.1 you can use <ruby> tags too. The "ruby (http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/)" element is pretty cool, but is browser support high enough yet?
MstrBob
09-02-2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Charles
And when you consider how many people 1) get XHTML™ wrong and 2) mix XHTML™ and HTML freely in their documents, we ought to just get rid if the thing.
That's similar to saying :
Cosidering how many people incorrectly use tables make unsemantic, unaccessible sites, we should just do away with them.
And when you consider how many people 1) get XHTML™ wrong and 2) mix XHTML™ and HTML freely in their documents, we ought to just get rid if the thing.
That's similar to saying :
Cosidering how many people incorrectly use tables make unsemantic, unaccessible sites, we should just do away with them.
IncaWarrior
09-02-2004, 05:04 PM
<ruby> is in IE 5 so that should be enough.
I don't think many people would like getting rid of tables.
I think of XHTML as a fresh start to HTML with more possibilities open to the designer.
I don't think many people would like getting rid of tables.
I think of XHTML as a fresh start to HTML with more possibilities open to the designer.
Charles
09-02-2004, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by MstrBob
That's similar to saying :
Cosidering how many people incorrectly use tables make unsemantic, unaccessible sites, we should just do away with them. Tables, when used properly, are a great benefit. What benefit is there in using XHTML™?
That's similar to saying :
Cosidering how many people incorrectly use tables make unsemantic, unaccessible sites, we should just do away with them. Tables, when used properly, are a great benefit. What benefit is there in using XHTML™?
Charles
09-02-2004, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
<ruby> is in IE 5 so that should be enough. But it's not supported by Mozilla. You would need to add an XSL stylesheet describing how to transform the element into HTML 4.01 Strict.
<ruby> is in IE 5 so that should be enough. But it's not supported by Mozilla. You would need to add an XSL stylesheet describing how to transform the element into HTML 4.01 Strict.
MstrBob
09-02-2004, 05:59 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, wouldn't using XHTML make your site more accessible? It would, afterall, make your content accessible in the new XHTML browsers available in devices like cell phones and PDA's. Since XHTML is stricter (including only lower case elements and attributes) these browsers don't have to be as large or as powerful. It's the idea behind the new web - make content available on the web no matter the device. XHTML achieves this to a better degree than HTML. Though, in practice of designing a website, there may not be any great difference to the one coding it, it does make a site more universal.
I don't have a problem with HTML 4.01 Strict. But XHTML is the next generation. This will be more evident once XHTML 2.0 is available in browsers. It will show a difference in the syntax over HTML 4.01 by now utilizing new tags and elments such as XForms. There's nothing wrong with XHTML, and it has additional benefits over HTML. Simply because it is confused by those who haven't learned it properly is no reason to get rid of it.
I don't have a problem with HTML 4.01 Strict. But XHTML is the next generation. This will be more evident once XHTML 2.0 is available in browsers. It will show a difference in the syntax over HTML 4.01 by now utilizing new tags and elments such as XForms. There's nothing wrong with XHTML, and it has additional benefits over HTML. Simply because it is confused by those who haven't learned it properly is no reason to get rid of it.
Charles
09-02-2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by MstrBob
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, wouldn't using XHTML make your site more accessible? Accessible means "works on every browser" and as you can make a valid XHTML™ document that doesn't work on an HTML browser, XHTML™ is less accessible.
By now we've pretty much figured out how to parse HTML. I don't think that you're ever going to see any XHTML™ only browsers out there. And if you do, be assured that you will see online XHTML™ to HTML translators.
The extra restrictions that XHTML™ imposes are not there to make browsers smaller (when you add XSL they're actually bigger) they're to allow for some level of error checking without a DTD - something that's helpful when we start mixing mark up languages.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, wouldn't using XHTML make your site more accessible? Accessible means "works on every browser" and as you can make a valid XHTML™ document that doesn't work on an HTML browser, XHTML™ is less accessible.
By now we've pretty much figured out how to parse HTML. I don't think that you're ever going to see any XHTML™ only browsers out there. And if you do, be assured that you will see online XHTML™ to HTML translators.
The extra restrictions that XHTML™ imposes are not there to make browsers smaller (when you add XSL they're actually bigger) they're to allow for some level of error checking without a DTD - something that's helpful when we start mixing mark up languages.
onthink
09-05-2004, 10:25 AM
Thanks for the information you provide.
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.