Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES

Reply
Thread Tools

NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES

 
 
Kurda Yon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Hi,

I try to validate one page with the http://validator.w3.org. This is
the error-message that I got:
NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES

And this is the explanation to the error-message:
The sequence <FOO /> can be interpreted in at least two different
ways, depending on the DOCTYPE of the document. For HMTL 4.01 Strict,
the '/' terminates the tag <FOO (with an implied '>'). However, since
many browsers don't interpret it this way, even in the presence of an
HMTL 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, it is best to avoid it completely in pure
HTML documents and reserve its use solely for those written in XHTML.

However, it does not help. I do not have any <FOO/> tags in my HTML
code. This is the body-part of the code:
<body>
<form action="new.php">
</form>
</body>

The validator complains about the second line of the code.

Could anybody pleas help me with this problem?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bone Ur
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:57:29 GMT
Kurda Yon scribed:

> Hi,
>
> I try to validate one page with the http://validator.w3.org. This is
> the error-message that I got:
> NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
>
> And this is the explanation to the error-message:
> The sequence <FOO /> can be interpreted in at least two different
> ways, depending on the DOCTYPE of the document. For HMTL 4.01 Strict,
> the '/' terminates the tag <FOO (with an implied '>'). However, since
> many browsers don't interpret it this way, even in the presence of an
> HMTL 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, it is best to avoid it completely in pure
> HTML documents and reserve its use solely for those written in XHTML.
>
> However, it does not help. I do not have any <FOO/> tags in my HTML
> code. This is the body-part of the code:
> <body>
> <form action="new.php">
> </form>
> </body>
>
> The validator complains about the second line of the code.
>
> Could anybody pleas help me with this problem?


I think you need a "method" attribute in the form:

<form action="new.php" method="get"> (-or 'post')

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Kurda Yon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I try to validate one page with the http://validator.w3.org. This is
> the error-message that I got:
> NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES
>
> And this is the explanation to the error-message:
> The sequence <FOO /> can be interpreted in at least two different
> ways, depending on the DOCTYPE of the document. For HMTL 4.01 Strict,
> the '/' terminates the tag <FOO (with an implied '>'). However, since
> many browsers don't interpret it this way, even in the presence of an
> HMTL 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE, it is best to avoid it completely in pure
> HTML documents and reserve its use solely for those written in XHTML.
>
> However, it does not help. I do not have any <FOO/> tags in my HTML
> code. This is the body-part of the code:
> <body>
> <form action="new.php">
> </form>
> </body>


You can't have an empty form in HTML 4.01 strict.
>
> The validator complains about the second line of the code.
>
> Could anybody pleas help me with this problem?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Scripsit Bone Ur:

> I think you need a "method" attribute in the form:


Consider reading HTML specifications some day, if you intend to keep
giving advice on HTML in public.

It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
_validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.


It's generally a quick way of alienating oneself from a group by
commenting on other people's possible minor mistakes in a patronizing
and condescending way.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007

"Els" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
>> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.

>
> It's generally a quick way of alienating oneself from a group by
> commenting on other people's possible minor mistakes in a patronizing
> and condescending way.


Patronising and condescending? I would have said bloody arrogantly abusing.
Typical of Korpela though. Then again I very rarely read anything he posts
anymore. See the name, set the thread to ignore.

--
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
rf wrote:
> "Els" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>
>>> It's generally a quick way to ridicule oneself by commenting on
>>> _validation_ problems without having the slightest clue about DTDs.

>>
>> It's generally a quick way of alienating oneself from a group by
>> commenting on other people's possible minor mistakes in a patronizing
>> and condescending way.

>
> Patronising and condescending? I would have said bloody arrogantly abusing.


Was trying to be polite..

> Typical of Korpela though. Then again I very rarely read anything he posts
> anymore. See the name, set the thread to ignore.


Well, I got the alienating right then
(and apparently I managed to reply before you had the chance to set
this thread to ignore )

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Scripsit Kurda Yon:

> I try to validate one page with the http://validator.w3.org.


What's the URL of your page?

> This is
> the error-message that I got:
> NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES


Nasty, isn't it? Who could guess that "NET" means "Null End Tag"? And
this confusing error message has a fairly confusing explanation:

> The sequence <FOO /> can be interpreted in at least two different
> ways, depending on the DOCTYPE of the document.


Read that without the "at least" part, and read "DOCTYPE" as "media type
(HTML vs. XHTML)".

> For HMTL 4.01 Strict,
> the '/' terminates the tag <FOO (with an implied '>').


Read "For HTML 4.01 Strict" as "Formally, for HTML versions prior to
XHTML".

> However, since
> many browsers don't interpret it this way,


Read that without the word "many".

> even in the presence of an
> HMTL 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE,


Skip that as mere confusion.

> it is best to avoid it completely in pure
> HTML documents and reserve its use solely for those written in XHTML.


Well, _that_ is correct.

> However, it does not help.


I'm not surprised.

> I do not have any <FOO/> tags in my HTML
> code.


"FOO" or "foo" is common computer jargon, acting as a placeholder for
anything that might be suitable in some context. Here it stands
generically for any element name.

> This is the body-part of the code:
> <body>
> <form action="new.php">
> </form>
> </body>


No it isn't.

> The validator complains about the second line of the code.


No it doesn't. The code, when inside a suitable container, passes
validation as HTML 4.01 Transitional. It fails validation as HTML 4.01
Strict, but for a completely different reason with a completely
different error message (since there is no block element inside the form
element, it's not valid HTML 4.01 Strict, and the validator reports: end
tag for "FORM" which is not finished).

So what's the URL?

Well, looking into my crystal ball, I see that your form tag is actually
something like

<form action=foo/new.php>

and the real error is lack of quotation marks around the value, i.e. you
should have

<form action="foo/new.php">

Actually my crystal ball tells me that you also got another error
message that hints to the issue of missing quotes.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Scripsit Els:

> Was trying to be polite..


If you babble pointlessly without having anything to say about the topic
at hand, or the group topics in general, it really doesn't matter how
politely you do that.

But I'd still like to ask you to be polite enough to keep using the same
forged From field, until you have a clue or something useful to say.
Thank you in advance.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2007
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Els:
>
>> Was trying to be polite..

>
> If you babble pointlessly without having anything to say about the topic
> at hand, or the group topics in general, it really doesn't matter how
> politely you do that.


I'd never have thought to have to break this to _you_ of all people,
but...
This is Usenet! If your problem gets solved while we are discussing
it, it's a bonus - this is not a helpdesk and all that. And I was
merely commenting on your post, and very much on the topic of your
post. Not the topic of the OPs post, that's correct. But you weren't
either, were you?

> But I'd still like to ask you to be polite enough to keep using the same
> forged From field, until you have a clue or something useful to say.
> Thank you in advance.


My From field isn't forged. You just _assume_ it is forged, because it
looks like a regular forged address. It is not though. You can test it
if you don't believe me.

As for clues to say something useful, I think it is useful to point
out once in a while that the way you respond to people is not a very
nice one.


--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 
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
Re: Yes means yes Bucky Breeder Computer Support 0 05-19-2009 01:37 PM
yes minister and yes prime minister wanted music_mania DVD Video 11 12-11-2006 07:32 PM
[IE: Yes Opera:Yes Mozilla:No] : Error on Postback and Validation teo ASP .Net 3 11-11-2006 04:53 AM
Kernel.y and yes,yes,yes not least surprise Jamie Herre Ruby 1 01-07-2005 07:33 PM
yes yes Kevin Walsh Computer Support 1 08-30-2004 12:55 AM



Advertisments