B
Becky Lash
">
I'll roger that. Dreamweaver is "ok", but definitely has limits.
M
Mark Parnell
Why not write you own DTD that requires closing tags, quoting attribute
values, etc? ;-)
L
Lauri Raittila
I think that would be easier than doing everything right with XHTML...
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml
C
C A Upsdell
Why not use a DTD that exists right now, created by the W3C?
Honestly, I am bemused by the attitude that so many have expressed about
xHTML. I have never had a problem working with it: indeed, I have found
that it is easier than HTML.
As to why one should use xHTML (since you seem to want to throw references
around), see what the W3C itself says, at
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq .
Honestly, I am bemused by the attitude that so many have expressed about
xHTML. I have never had a problem working with it: indeed, I have found
that it is easier than HTML.
As to why one should use xHTML (since you seem to want to throw references
around), see what the W3C itself says, at
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq .
T
Toby Inkster
kchayka said:Hmmm... <img.../> is easier than <img...>? Easier to forget, maybe.
In HTML 4, there is nothing preventing you from including optional end
tags like </p>, or using all lowercase for tags and attributes, or mixed
case IDs and classes, or using a strict DOCTYPE.
In HTML, some end tags are required, some are optional and some are not
allowed at all. And of course, even when they are formally optional (e.g.
<td>) there are plenty of browsers that act as if they were required. And
some *start* tags are also optional (<html>,<head>,<body>).
In XHTML, all start tags are *required* and all end tags are *required*.
Simple.
L
Lauri Raittila
in said:
So you still nthink "it is good on my computers, so it must be for
anyone"
I think that XHTML browsers in handphones have problem with
unvalid/incorrect XHTML. HTML goes though some proxy, which takes care of
correcting... Of course, most likly proxy fixes XHTML server as text/html
too now, when 90% of XHTML is bad.
I saw no reason there. Which one you mean?
Better forms is mentioned many times, but they don't work in reality. And
whatwg is doing HTML frames 2 with backward compatible way anyway.
S
Spartanicus
Toby Inkster said:
Eh, no.
Eh, no.
Not with that definition.
T
Toby Inkster
Spartanicus said:
OK. Name an element with either an optional start tag or an optional end
tag in XHTML.
S
Steve Pugh
tbody
Steve
T
Toby Inkster
Steve said:
Start and end tags are both optional in *HTML*, but in *XHTML* they are
both required.
XHTML 1.0 ref:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-strict.dtd_tbody
XHTML 1.1 ref:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/DTD/xhtml-table-1.mod
(The XHTML 1.1 DTDs are quite unreadable, but the outcome of that file is
that both start and end tags are required.)
S
Spartanicus
Toby Inkster said:
Stating "In XHTML, all start tags are *required*" is syntactically
sloppy, I know what you meant, but the definition can be read to mean
that a valid xhtml document must contain all known start tags.
"all end tags are *required*" is incorrect, either an end tag is used or
as with empty elements the element is "quick closed" (which does not
involve using a closing *tag*). Non empty elements can also be "quick
closed" if they contain no content, although this is not recommended, it
is valid.
Again I know that you meant to say "in xhtml all elements must be
closed", but sloppy syntax can confuse others and should be avoided
where possible.
S
Steve Pugh
The presence of a tbody element is implicit every time you have a
table element. But you don't need to include the start and end tags at
all. (In contrast with, for example, the body element in HTML which is
implicit in every document and which needs the start and end tags in
XHTML documents).
Steve
R
rf
Steve said:
Not just implicit. It even ends up in the DOM. I scratched my head for an
hour last year wondering why I could not get to the <tr> elements from a C++
program. Was looking in the said:
Sorry. I read the thread as a start tag without an end tag. As in the
optional </p> even though there is a <p>.
J
Jan Faerber
Becky said:
Why do you use
<table border="0" [...] background="images/woodstone2_1x[3...7].jpg">?
Use
<td style="background-image:url(background.jpg)">!
J
Jan Faerber
Jan said:
And what about this with onMouseOver ...?:
<table><tr><td><img src="images/woodstone1_1x1.jpg"><img
src="images/woodstone1_1x2.jpg"><img src="images/woodstone1_1x3.jpg"><img
src="images/woodstone1_1x4.jpg"><img src="images/woodstone1_1x5.jpg"><img
src="images/woodstone1_1x6.jpg"><img src="images/woodstone1_1x7.jpg">
</td></tr>
J
Jan Faerber
Jan said:
Oh - I see - you have those links and layers.
J
Jan Faerber
Jan said:
But as far as I can see it you do not use
<div style=" [...] z-index: _; ... id="layer_"> in a systematical way.
You mess it up in the last two sections.
M
Mark Parnell
Previously in alt.html said:
I think that's what Toby meant, but Spartanicus read Toby's post
literally, rather than the way it was intended.
J
Jan Faerber
Becky said:
No problem...
I loaded it now:
http://html.janfaerber.com/files/wood/indexmod.html
templates/dropshadow.png ... this image is too large!
Same with this:
templates/dropshadow.gif
news3.gif is not in the '/image' folder.
You don't have a <html> tag in the beginning.
Why do you use two body tags?
##############################
Your problem is just that line:
nr. 155: <td colspan="2" width="750" height="122"><a href="index.html">
It works fine without 'width=750'.