ilya
12-10-2004, 08:32 PM
whats this mean? http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fft.intellecthost.com%2Fet%2F
my site is http://ft.intellecthost.com/et/
my site is http://ft.intellecthost.com/et/
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : w3c validate
rhsunderground
12-10-2004, 11:23 PM
you have a TON of body tags and a few head tags. you only need one of each.
Charles
12-11-2004, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by rhsunderground
you have a TON of body tags and a few head tags. you only need one of each. Actually, you don't need any of them. Those tags are optional.
you have a TON of body tags and a few head tags. you only need one of each. Actually, you don't need any of them. Those tags are optional.
the tree
12-11-2004, 07:38 AM
Well generaly you want one of each. But either way it means your code is even more rubbishy than I thought Dreamweaver could do, You might want to look at this http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dreamweaver/. But I'd just advise learning html.
rhsunderground
12-11-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Charles
Actually, you don't need any of them. Those tags are optional. you seem to make a career out of pointing out small wholes in my knowledge loop.:p
Actually, you don't need any of them. Those tags are optional. you seem to make a career out of pointing out small wholes in my knowledge loop.:p
Charles
12-11-2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by rhsunderground
you seem to make a career out of pointing out small wholes in my knowledge loop.:p But I trust that somebody will point out mine. That way we all get smarter.
you seem to make a career out of pointing out small wholes in my knowledge loop.:p But I trust that somebody will point out mine. That way we all get smarter.
ilya
12-11-2004, 05:02 PM
well i only have one body tag...and one head tag..opening and closing for both....and i know how to code without dreamweaver. Im just stumped why it thinks i have multiples..? could it be because i use php? and pnp include? and the other pages might have body and head?
Charles
12-11-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by ilya
well i only have one body tag...and one head tag..opening and closing for both....and i know how to code without dreamweaver. Im just stumped why it thinks i have multiples..? could it be because i use php? and pnp include? and the other pages might have body and head? All we see and all that browsers care about is the output of your PHP. And you are sending to us a document with lots of HEAD and BODY elements.
well i only have one body tag...and one head tag..opening and closing for both....and i know how to code without dreamweaver. Im just stumped why it thinks i have multiples..? could it be because i use php? and pnp include? and the other pages might have body and head? All we see and all that browsers care about is the output of your PHP. And you are sending to us a document with lots of HEAD and BODY elements.
ilya
12-11-2004, 05:35 PM
SO COULD PHP INCLUDES BE THE PROBLEM? OR IN OTHER WORDS THE PAGES THAT ARE INCLUDED..WHICH ALSO HAVE BODY AND HEAD TAGS..PLZ ANSWER MY QUESTION..NOT TRY TO TELL ME THAT BROWSERS CARE BOUT...I WANA FIX THIS PROBLEM..I KNOW IT AINT GOOD..BUT DONT JUST POST WITHOUT USEFUL HELP
Charles
12-11-2004, 06:38 PM
1. Stop shouting at me.
2. View your page in any browser.
3. View the source from the browser.
You should see lots of HEAD and BODY elements. How did they get there? When you have answered that question you will know how to solve the problem.
As an aside, I'm not here to do your work for you. I'm here to learn and to teach.
2. View your page in any browser.
3. View the source from the browser.
You should see lots of HEAD and BODY elements. How did they get there? When you have answered that question you will know how to solve the problem.
As an aside, I'm not here to do your work for you. I'm here to learn and to teach.
ilya
12-11-2004, 06:43 PM
see now that is the php include of the url plug script i made. it generates body tags for each plug...gotta fix that.. so thank you for that..but the post before deserved CAPS :) and i never asked you to solved this..i asked if my php was generating the problem
well i fixed it..thanks alot why does w3c require ALT tags on all images? cuz that would messup a graphic layout and make alt tags very annoying
well i fixed it..thanks alot why does w3c require ALT tags on all images? cuz that would messup a graphic layout and make alt tags very annoying
rhsunderground
12-11-2004, 10:52 PM
it requires them for screen-readers, i believe, that can't read images.
ilya
12-11-2004, 11:08 PM
so how would that help them..do i put descriptions of the image?lol e.x. a blue background with white stripes and crosshatch....
rhsunderground
12-11-2004, 11:46 PM
no, just say "background image" or "picture of my car"
Charles
12-12-2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by rhsunderground
no, just say "background image" or "picture of my car" No, don't do that. If your image is presenting some textual information then the "alt" attribute should be set to that text. Often it is better set to nothing. Your page needs to make sense when run through Lynx (http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html). See http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt .
no, just say "background image" or "picture of my car" No, don't do that. If your image is presenting some textual information then the "alt" attribute should be set to that text. Often it is better set to nothing. Your page needs to make sense when run through Lynx (http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html). See http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt .
rhsunderground
12-12-2004, 11:37 AM
crap. i'm done.:p
ilya
12-12-2004, 04:08 PM
well check out my page now..and its still valid YAY and heres the LYNX link..it looks good http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fft.intellecthost.com%2Fet%2F
Ben Rogers
12-12-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by rhsunderground
crap. i'm done.:p Lol. Yeah. Saying "A picture of my car" is pretty much just taunting them; just make the alt the text you would use were you to not have that image.
crap. i'm done.:p Lol. Yeah. Saying "A picture of my car" is pretty much just taunting them; just make the alt the text you would use were you to not have that image.
ilya
12-12-2004, 07:58 PM
lol...check out the w3c validation for microsoft.com lol 25 errors..they suck http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fmicrosoft.com
Ben Rogers
12-12-2004, 08:35 PM
Why look to Microsoft? This page (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=287640 ) and especially this page validated as XHTML 1.1 (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=287640&doctype=XHTML+1.1) are MUCH worse.
ilya
12-12-2004, 08:46 PM
forums never validate good..never..so dont even bother to try lol..but microsoft..thats just sad
Ben Rogers
12-12-2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by ilya
forums never validate good..never..so dont even bother to try lol..but microsoft..thats just sad Ilya. It's MICROSOFT. The whole company is sad, or depressing, anyways.
forums never validate good..never..so dont even bother to try lol..but microsoft..thats just sad Ilya. It's MICROSOFT. The whole company is sad, or depressing, anyways.
Charles
12-12-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
Why look to Microsoft? This page (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=287640 ) and especially this page validated as XHTML 1.1 (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=287640&doctype=XHTML+1.1) are MUCH worse. I doubt you'll find any one more of a sticlker than me for correct HTML, except for Dave Raggett (http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/) himself, but I must say, it's unfair to take an HTML page, and one written as HTML 4.01 transitional, and to try to validate it as XHTML™ 1.1. Especially as there apears to be an error in the 1.1 DTD. I can't get it past any validating XML parsers.
Why look to Microsoft? This page (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=287640 ) and especially this page validated as XHTML 1.1 (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=287640&doctype=XHTML+1.1) are MUCH worse. I doubt you'll find any one more of a sticlker than me for correct HTML, except for Dave Raggett (http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/) himself, but I must say, it's unfair to take an HTML page, and one written as HTML 4.01 transitional, and to try to validate it as XHTML™ 1.1. Especially as there apears to be an error in the 1.1 DTD. I can't get it past any validating XML parsers.
pawky
12-12-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by ilya
but the post before deserved CAPS :)
actually it didnt, they were trying to help and there is no reason to 'yell' at them for that. They could have always just ignored the thread and left.
Originally posted by ilya
so how would that help them..do i put descriptions of the image?lol e.x. a blue background with white stripes and crosshatch....
if the image is used as a background then why not make it a background? no reason to use the image tag for that.
but the post before deserved CAPS :)
actually it didnt, they were trying to help and there is no reason to 'yell' at them for that. They could have always just ignored the thread and left.
Originally posted by ilya
so how would that help them..do i put descriptions of the image?lol e.x. a blue background with white stripes and crosshatch....
if the image is used as a background then why not make it a background? no reason to use the image tag for that.
Ben Rogers
12-12-2004, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Charles
I doubt you'll find any one more of a sticlker than me for correct HTML, except for Dave Raggett (http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/) himself, but I must say, it's unfair to take an HTML page, and one written as HTML 4.01 transitional, and to try to validate it as XHTML™ 1.1. Especially as there apears to be an error in the 1.1 DTD. I can't get it past any validating XML parsers. No, but the amount of errors seemed to be the thing here, and 651 is a large number of erros.
I doubt you'll find any one more of a sticlker than me for correct HTML, except for Dave Raggett (http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/) himself, but I must say, it's unfair to take an HTML page, and one written as HTML 4.01 transitional, and to try to validate it as XHTML™ 1.1. Especially as there apears to be an error in the 1.1 DTD. I can't get it past any validating XML parsers. No, but the amount of errors seemed to be the thing here, and 651 is a large number of erros.
MstrBob
12-12-2004, 09:40 PM
Considering it's not an XML document, I would expect a large amount of errors. You can check a perfectly valid, semantic HTML 4.01 document as XHTML 1.1 and receive a large amount of errors. To get the real comparison use HTML 4.01 strict, otherwise your point is moot.
And forums CAN generate valid code, if they're made to do so. It's just that most creators don't bother.
Microsoft has actually come a long way in improving, but as normal, comes up short. *shrug*.
And forums CAN generate valid code, if they're made to do so. It's just that most creators don't bother.
Microsoft has actually come a long way in improving, but as normal, comes up short. *shrug*.
ilya
12-13-2004, 02:54 PM
well first off all the caps were an accident..truelly.cuz i look ar my key board the whole time..then when i finished it was all caps..and i didnt want to rewrite..lol
webdeveloper.com
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright WebMediaBrands Inc., All Rights Reserved.