Re: [NH] Warning: expected "html PUBLIC"
- Hi Grant,
>^!Url www.FontWithDrawalSociety.orgA joke right? :)
The online Validator at w3g won't pass me until I take out my
bordercolorlight/dark. OH well, I guess I won't pass on those
pages. Bobby likes my pages though and I feel that is a very
high honor to get. ;) To be honest with you, I think I will just
take what I have learned and use the browsers as my validators.
If it looks good in them - I really don't care what w3g and xhtml
think. I would rather it look good for people than have to be
chained up by rules and not be able to do things I would like. I
do appreciate all you have taught me, so don't take the above the
wrong way. It is way past my bed time and I'm tired and grumpy
too. -- Sometimes I wake up grumpy in the morning, but I usually
let her sleep. ;)
Bye for now,
Prov. 3:5-7; 4:23
- Jody wrote:
> To be honest with you, I think I will justAmen to that!
> take what I have learned and use the browsers as my validators.
> If it looks good in them - I really don't care what w3g and xhtml
As I understand it, correct me if I have it wrong,
part of the rational for xhtml is to overcome past abuses in the use
We are rapidly comming into the development for more portable devices
like cell phones and Dick Tracy wristwatches. Whereas the big browsers
could exist as bloatware (11mg downloads) so that they could
good and bad HTML, the new devices will have their brower on a chip
and will *only* function with good code.
This means follow the rules: proper nesting, closing tags etc.
It seems to me that it is not too soon to get in the habit of passing
some kind of validation - choose your exceptions and either agree
or fix the code.
Of course all this depends on the expected life of your pages ;-)
So I do care what xhtml thinks.
- IanO -
ps I am as confused as the next developer as to what needs to be
in the <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0
line. I admit that I haven't taken the time to learn about it and
occasionally it is the cause of my page not working as I expect.
This discussion is motivating me to find out more about it.
- Hi Ian, > As I understand it, correct me if I have it wrong, part of the > rational for xhtml is to overcome past abuses in the use of > HTML. That is what I understand also. > This means follow the rules: proper nesting, closing tags etc. > It seems to me that it is not too soon to get in the habit of > passing some kind of validation - choose your exceptions and > either agree with them or fix the code. I don't have a problem with proper coding, but I do when they start getting nit picky. WC3 doesn't allow bordercolordark and light, etc. Why not just take out border altogether and all text color and while their at it images too? Not that I care for MS, but they do have some good ideas every now and then. ;) > Of course all this depends on the expected life of your pages ;-) True and how much one is concerned how many devices he can display in. > So I do care what xhtml thinks. Good for you! I hope all the Dick Tracey fans can view your big images on their watch face. I am reall
y only concerned that the majority of PC's can get some kind of presentable/readable page. > is used on the first line and just says the doc appears to be HTML. I'll probably continue to validate a page a day and maybe just start building Clips as I go to replace tags with the new and eventually get all of them in one Clip that should cover my 5000 or whatever web pages depending on what I felt like doing on each one of them and what program I made them with. Some of my pages pass first time through believe it or not. ;)
The NoteTab and Html List...
There is a little confusion about the notion of "validity" which I hope to
knock out of that head of yours!
When you say that WC3 "doesn't allow" bordercolor stuff - that's not exactly
what's happening here. That tag is proprietary and was created by a browser
vendor. It is not part of the HTML specifications in any version. When an
SMGL parser comes along to check your HTML code and finds something there
that isn't part of the specification, then it has no choice but to say that
"this doesn't qualify as valid HTML ...."
Now I consider myself rather a purist regarding HTML. I use the validator to
check my pages. But if I run across something like the above that causes my
page not to validate, I am not concerned. Why? Because I know that other
browsers that do not support TOPMARGIN or BORDERCOLOR or the like simply
ignore the tag. It causes no problems. Therefore I can make an informed
decision that this page will fail validity because I have chosen to use a
tag which doesn't exist in the HTML specifications, yet I choose to use it
because I like how it works in browser X.
So my pages will not all validate. But I will not have a page which fails
validation because I write sloppy code in general.
Validation is a tool to use for your use, not a slavemaster. WC3 does not
mind if you use TOPMARGIN on your page, or BORDERCOLOR either. They are just
tags which are, properly speaking, not HTML at all.
You are not under the law! Yet you might find the law to be useful.
Bottom line: use validation to write good code. Break specs when you know
the consequences and take responsibility for them.
SUNY College at Fredonia
> I don't have a problem with proper coding, but I do when they startgetting nit picky. WC3 doesn't allow bordercolordark and light, etc. Why not
just take out border altogether and all text color and while their at it
- Hi Michael,
> You are not under the law! Yet you might find the law to beThanks - that is the way I was starting to feel - that I was
> Bottom line: use validation to write good code. Break specs
> when you know the consequences and take responsibility for them.
under the law.
I guess I wanted w3c to say like my boy would say, "Good job
Jody" since everybody else is happy, even Bobby. :)
I guess I could take it could, save, and hit my upload icon on my
Clipbar, validate so I get my pat on the back, undo the changes,
save, and upload. <bg> I could do that faster in NoteTab than
some people would take to find their ftp program. :)
The NoteTab and Html List...
> I took off the last half of the following, because I thought<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> it was a like to www.w3.org and those are the guys causing me
> all these headaches. ;)
DOCTYPE the type of document in your case is a PUBLIC document based on the
HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD.
first quote is the name of the DTD
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
the 2nd quote is the url where the DTD can be found.
.The DTD (document type definition) defines exactly what elements and
attributes can be contained in your document.
When you validate a document you validate it against the DTD that the
document is linked to.
If you set the doctype to system then you can locate the DTD on your
<!DOCTYPE HTML system "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
There is nothing stopping you altering this local DTD and give certain
elements attributes like TOPMARGIN, BORDERCOLOR or any other attributes you
like so it will comply to a certain propriety browser. If you use these
attrributes in your document and defined these attributes in the DTD then
your document would VALIDATE. In short validation has got nothing to do with
how a browser displays your documents but whether or not it complies to a
IMHO every HTML clipbook library should be based on a DTD.The xhtml library
being based on the xhtml strict DTD is an example how this can be done. In
fact the library is an attempt to translate a DTD into a clip library.
If you want to check it out the xhtml library is available at.
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//w3c//dtd HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "E:\NoteTabPro\loose.dtd">
>If you want to customise the DTD Doctype needs to be set to system not
<!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM
The following article shows how you can validate your document by
customising a DTD
you also might want to check out the discusion of the difference between
lints and validators.
>I tried the following in my .dtd file with and without %Color;TIDY doesn't lay claim to be a validator and as far I am aware it is not DTD
>but Tidy still reports it. ???
aware. It just checks that your markup is wellformed and that it complies
with w3c recomendations.
I'm not quite sure whether customising the DTD would work with the cse
validator The above article says it is a lint not a real.validator.
Just checked the CSE site.....
In a reply to a post the CSE author Albert Wiersch said
"CSE does not read DTDs.
I will look into XHTML more for the next major upgrade. There are some
features you can check now to help you:
Require optional closing tags
Require lowercase tags and attributes
Require quoted attribute values
I think checking the above will help. Those options are in the Validator 2
tab in the Validator Engine Options. "
- Hi Grant,
> If you want to customise the DTD Doctype needs to be set toAh, maybe that is my problem. ;)
> system not public.
> <!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM
>> I tried the following in my .dtd file with and without %Color;OH, I must have misunderstood you. I was trying to get Tidy not
>> but Tidy still reports it. ???
> TIDY doesn't lay claim to be a validator and as far I am aware
> it is not DTD aware.
to check for bordercolor...
> Just checked the CSE site.....I know. :) Tidy is the one complaining.
> In a reply to a post the CSE author Albert Wiersch said
> "CSE does not read DTDs.
> I will look into XHTML more for the next major upgrade.OK, but that won't interest me. I won't use all lowercase until
forced to. The reason I asked before about using your library
and then making it all upper tag, lower attribute was I would
get a strict validation, but then change the case and change
<!DocType after that.
Clean-Funnies: click and send...