Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Validating a page with W3.org

Reply
Thread Tools

Validating a page with W3.org

 
 
Dave Kelly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2007
I am confused. I am trying to validate some html code. I get a tentative
validation with this caveat.



The detected DOCTYPE Declaration "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML 4.01
Transitional">" has been suppressed and the DOCTYPE for "HTML 4.01
Transitional" inserted instead, but even if no errors are shown below
the document will not be Valid until you update it to reflect this new
DOCTYPE.



It goes on to say:
The document located at <http://www.texasflyfishers.org/windknots.htm>
was checked and found to be tentatively valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.
This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we
successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser.
In other words, the document would validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional if
you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed
automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.

I checked 'show source' and the only thing that stands out is the change
of the 1st line from transitional to loose.

Am I trying to validate in the correct DOCTYPE, 'transitional'?
Under 'strict' there are 10 errors.

TIA
Dave

--
A little rum in the morning coffee. Just to clear the cobwebs, ya know.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris F.A. Johnson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2007
On 2007-07-22, Dave Kelly wrote:
> I am confused. I am trying to validate some html code. I get a tentative
> validation with this caveat.
>
> The detected DOCTYPE Declaration "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
> "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML 4.01
> Transitional">" has been suppressed and the DOCTYPE for "HTML 4.01
> Transitional" inserted instead, but even if no errors are shown below
> the document will not be Valid until you update it to reflect this new
> DOCTYPE.
>
> It goes on to say:
> The document located at <http://www.texasflyfishers.org/windknots.htm>
> was checked and found to be tentatively valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.
> This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we
> successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser.
> In other words, the document would validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional if
> you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed
> automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.
>
> I checked 'show source' and the only thing that stands out is the change
> of the 1st line from transitional to loose.
>
> Am I trying to validate in the correct DOCTYPE, 'transitional'?
> Under 'strict' there are 10 errors.


Use strict and fix the errors. It will not be hard to do if you use
an external stylesheet, e.g.:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/windknots.htm>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2007
Dave Kelly wrote:

> I am confused. I am trying to validate some html code. I get a tentative
> validation with this caveat.

<snip>

You have:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML 4.01 Transitional">

You should have:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

....the full usage. See:
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

Blame this on "Bluefish", which appears to be a rather bad, ancient?,
WYSIWYG program, I'd say. Try Kompozer; it should do much better:
http://www.kompozer.net/

> Under 'strict' there are 10 errors.


I was surprised there were only 10.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Baer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2007
Dave Kelly wrote:

> I am confused. I am trying to validate some html code. I get a tentative
> validation with this caveat.
>
>
>
> The detected DOCTYPE Declaration "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD
> HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML 4.01 Transitional">" has been
> suppressed and the DOCTYPE for "HTML 4.01 Transitional" inserted
> instead, but even if no errors are shown below the document will not be
> Valid until you update it to reflect this new DOCTYPE.
>
>
>
> It goes on to say:
> The document located at <http://www.texasflyfishers.org/windknots.htm>
> was checked and found to be tentatively valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.
> This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we
> successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser.
> In other words, the document would validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional if
> you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed
> automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.
>
> I checked 'show source' and the only thing that stands out is the change
> of the 1st line from transitional to loose.
>
> Am I trying to validate in the correct DOCTYPE, 'transitional'?
> Under 'strict' there are 10 errors.
>
> TIA
> Dave
>

I know very little about coding in HTML, but it would not hurt to try
fixing those errors, *one at a time* and doing a re-check; strict first,
transitional second.
 
Reply With Quote
 
andrew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
On 2007-07-22, Beauregard T. Shagnasty <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[...]

> Blame this on "Bluefish", which appears to be a rather bad, ancient?,
> WYSIWYG program, I'd say. Try Kompozer; it should do much better:
> http://www.kompozer.net/


Can I politely disagree here? Bluefish is _not_ actually a WYSIWYG
program. It it is in fact one of the better 'coding view' only Open
Source applications:

http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/

Mind you they could correct validations errors on this opening page


Andrew

--
Andrew's Corner
http://people.aapt.net.au/~adjlstrong/homer.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby A Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Blame this on "Bluefish", which appears to be a rather bad, ancient?,
> WYSIWYG program, I'd say.


No -- it's a rather good, current, non-WYSIWYG program.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 32 days, 4:28.]

Parsing an HTML Table with PEAR's XML_HTTPSax3
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/0...table-parsing/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby A Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
Robert Baer wrote:

> a re-check; strict first, transitional second.


Huh? If a page validates as Strict, it will validate as Transitional, but
not vice versa. What's the point in taking an already-validating Strict
page and testing it against the Transitional DTD? It will always pass.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 32 days, 4:29.]

Parsing an HTML Table with PEAR's XML_HTTPSax3
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/0...table-parsing/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
andrew wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Blame this on "Bluefish", which appears to be a rather bad, ancient?,
>> WYSIWYG program, I'd say. Try Kompozer; it should do much better:
>> http://www.kompozer.net/

>
> Can I politely disagree here?


Sure.

> Bluefish is _not_ actually a WYSIWYG program. It it is in fact one of
> the better 'coding view' only Open Source applications:
> http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/
>
> Mind you they could correct validations errors on this opening page


...and they could drop the xml prolog so IE doesn't go into quirks mode.
But I guess that is manual. Looks pretty nice; I'll have to give it a
try.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Kelly
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
I want to thank everyone for the feedback. And the urging to fix the errors.

I followed ya'lls lead and suggestions and can not put the W3C
validation seal on that page.

I had had reports that several of our members were have troubles with
that page. I spent a day or so trying to find the problem was preparing
to come to this group for help.

I suddenly realized that that piece of code had NEVER been validates.
Better do that - and you know the rest.

I'll ask those members to try again and report back in a few days.

Again, Thanks.
Dave



--
A little rum in the morning coffee. Just to clear the cobwebs, ya know.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2007
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:51:37 GMT
Toby A Inkster scribed:

> Robert Baer wrote:
>
>> a re-check; strict first, transitional second.

>
> Huh? If a page validates as Strict, it will validate as Transitional, but
> not vice versa. What's the point in taking an already-validating Strict
> page and testing it against the Transitional DTD? It will always pass.


I think he meant that if it doesn't pass "strict", it may pass
"transitional".

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
 
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Executing a validating query before loading a page Patrick Olurotimi Ige ASP .Net 2 01-27-2005 06:00 PM
validating user before loading a page? =?Utf-8?B?UGF0cmljay5PLklnZQ==?= ASP .Net 2 01-27-2005 07:18 AM
Validating Page Dynamically matt.torline@bissell.com ASP .Net 2 12-29-2004 06:41 PM
Validating XML file against an XSD schema in an ASP.NET page simon ames ASP .Net 1 04-11-2004 09:01 AM
validating portions of asp.net page. ani ASP .Net 7 01-05-2004 10:19 PM



Advertisments