Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Won't validate...why not?

Reply
Thread Tools

Won't validate...why not?

 
 
PC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
http://showcase.netins.net/web/awanapmc/
Site won't validate because:

"This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"

"There is no attribute HEIGHT"

"There is no attribute BORDERCOLOR"

Following is the offending line for HEIGHT and BORDERCOLOR. I only used
this way of writing it because Cute FTP autofilled them for me and I liked
the results in the look of the page. If I'm trying to use strict html, what
is the appropriate way to write this?

<table align="left" width="20%" height ="60%" border="1" bordercolor="white"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"

It's also complaining about my character encoding. I just don't understand
what it wants me to use. I've tried several different things I've come
across. W3C's validator doesn't like any of them...

--
PC


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
"PC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>http://showcase.netins.net/web/awanapmc/
>Site won't validate because:
>
>"This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"


You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
use Strict.

>"There is no attribute HEIGHT"
>
>"There is no attribute BORDERCOLOR"
>
>Following is the offending line for HEIGHT and BORDERCOLOR. I only used
>this way of writing it because Cute FTP autofilled them for me and I liked
>the results in the look of the page. If I'm trying to use strict html, what
>is the appropriate way to write this?
>
><table align="left" width="20%" height ="60%" border="1" bordercolor="white"
>cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"


Use CSS:

html,body{height:100%}
table{height:60%;float:left}

<table width="20%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" border="1">

Note that specifying a height for a table is almost certainly a bad
idea. If this table is used to create a layout then don't, tables are
for marking up tabular content.

>It's also complaining about my character encoding.


Because you don't specify one, configure your server to send the correct
character encoding via the appropriate http header, insert a meta
element in your <head> if that isn't possible, for example: <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">

>I just don't understand
>what it wants me to use. I've tried several different things I've come
>across. W3C's validator doesn't like any of them...


The typical standard of web coding on the web is very poor, using code
that "you come across" will likely lower what you write to that same
level.

Learn and use HTML to semantically mark up the content, learn and use
CSS to layout and style the site.

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Duende
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:

> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
> use Strict.


Why?

--
Duende (irregular)
Friends help you move.
Real friends help you move bodies.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
Duende <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
>> use Strict.

>
>Why?


Web pages should be coded to separate content and styling, then it
should be labeled appropriately by using a Strict doctype so that
validation becomes slightly more useful (validating isn't particularly
useful).

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
Big Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:04:24 +0000, Spartanicus <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Duende <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
>>> use Strict.

>>
>>Why?

>
>Web pages should be coded to separate content and styling, then it
>should be labeled appropriately by using a Strict doctype so that
>validation becomes slightly more useful (validating isn't particularly
>useful).


It is to search engines. It helps them to know that your site is
about, say, ball-bearings and not, due to poor markup, tables of
unusual dimension.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
home of SEO that's shiny!
--
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dorward
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
Duende wrote:
> While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:
>> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
>> use Strict.

>
> Why?


,----[ http://w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/loosedtd.html ]
| Authors should use the Strict DTD when possible, but may use the
| Transitional DTD when support for presentation attribute and elements is
| required.
`----

This is 2004. Browsers which lack support for style sheets generally also
lack support for presentational attributes and elements also. There is no
need to use Transitional this millenium.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
Duende wrote:

> While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:
>
>> You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
>> use Strict.

>
> Why?


Transitional was created to make transition from earlier versions of HTML
(particularly 3.x) easier. As HTML 4.x has been around for nearly seven
years, I think it's safe to say that the transition phase is over.

Also, from the HTML 4.0 spec:
| We recommend that authors write documents that conform to the strict DTD
| rather than the other DTDs defined by this specification.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./toad_the_wet_sprocket/ps/08_walk_on_the_ocean.ogg

 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric B. Bednarz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
Big Bill <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>> (validating isn't particularly useful).

>
> It is to search engines.


Of course, but what's more much important: it also will increase the
size of one's private parts and the bald will find their hair growing
back.

I don't get where all the bad press about the apocalyptical state of IT
economics is coming from; apparently it is still possible to just make
things up while typing, a reliable indicator of a physically healthy and
wealthy environment.


--
| ) PiĆ¹ Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Liz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
In message <co9ivl$38u$1$(E-Mail Removed)>
David Dorward <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> This is 2004. Browsers which lack support for style sheets generally also
> lack support for presentational attributes and elements also. There is no
> need to use Transitional this millenium.


Hmmmm
I can't speak about 'generally' but I use RiscOS.
We have five browsers that I know about.
None of them support CSS totally: most not at all. One of the latter is the
fastest, therefore, I suspect, the most used on our platform.
All of them support tables used for presentation, which I realise is
deprecated; in fact hereabouts it is a capital offence.

I'm always grateful when a site uses Transitional (they look so awful here
otherwise, even if the information is 'legally' there, and buy from them
(e.g. amazon, Lands End) and I will be using Transitional for my own
authoring for the foreseeable future.

> There is no need to use Transitional this millenium.


There is clearly a need for me, and other RiscOS users, to use Transitional.
I'm sure I read somewhere that some huge proportion of websites don't validate.
Surely validating 4.01 Transitional is better than not validating at all?

Please don't make sweeping statements things from your own
perspective/knowledge.

Liz

--
 
Reply With Quote
 
Liz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-27-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)> I wrote:

> In message <co9ivl$38u$1$(E-Mail Removed)>
> David Dorward <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> > There is no need to use Transitional this millenium.

>
> There is clearly a need for me, and other RiscOS users, to use Transitional.

And if someone were selling RiscOS software/hardware, they'd be shooting
themselves in the foot to use CSS.

> Please don't make sweeping statements things from your own
> perspective/knowledge.

Sorry, that was a bad conflation of two sentences.
It was supposed to read: "Please don't make sweeping statements from your
own limited perspective/knowledge."

Slainte

Liz
--
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments