Is Dreamweaver 8's validator unreliable? I'm finding so..

X

xyZed

I asked this question on the Dreamweaver site and despite adding a
second post it still lies dead in the water after several days with no
one caring to comment.

I have Dreamweaver 8 and it's set to validate XHTML 1.0 Transitional
but it misses lots of errors (compared to W3C validator)

For example (and this is only on one page) it hasn't picked up my
erroneous use of more than one "id" element, and missed a "end tag
for "img" omitted but OMITTAG NO was specified". Plus it misses a
"required attribute "alt" not specified" and even an extra </div>
where a div was never opened

I've been relying on dreamweaver's validator which is why so many
mistakes have crept in as I've modified, checked an uploaded. I just
wondered if it was known that Dreamweavers validator is useless? It's
supposed to be a professional tool.

--

Free washing machine help and advice.

www.washerhelp.co.uk

www.xyzed.co.uk/newsgroups/top-posting.html
 
D

David Dorward

xyZed said:
I have Dreamweaver 8 and it's set to validate XHTML 1.0 Transitional
but it misses lots of errors (compared to W3C validator)

Then it is broken.
For example (and this is only on one page) it hasn't picked up my
erroneous use of more than one "id" element,

I assume you mean the use of the same id on multiple elements? Ouch, nasty
bug.
and missed a "end tag for "img" omitted but OMITTAG NO was specified".
Plus it misses a "required attribute "alt" not specified" and even an
extra </div> where a div was never opened

Certainly not a tool you can depend on then.
I've been relying on dreamweaver's validator which is why so many
mistakes have crept in as I've modified, checked an uploaded. I just
wondered if it was known that Dreamweavers validator is useless?

It is now.
It's supposed to be a professional tool.

So is Frontpage ... :)
 
S

Steve Pugh

xyZed said:
I asked this question on the Dreamweaver site and despite adding a
second post it still lies dead in the water after several days with no
one caring to comment.

I have Dreamweaver 8 and it's set to validate XHTML 1.0 Transitional
but it misses lots of errors (compared to W3C validator)

For example (and this is only on one page) it hasn't picked up my
erroneous use of more than one "id" element, and missed a "end tag
for "img" omitted but OMITTAG NO was specified". Plus it misses a
"required attribute "alt" not specified" and even an extra </div>
where a div was never opened

I've been relying on dreamweaver's validator which is why so many
mistakes have crept in as I've modified, checked an uploaded. I just
wondered if it was known that Dreamweavers validator is useless? It's
supposed to be a professional tool.

The "validator" in DW is not a validator in the strict SGML/XML sense
of the word. Instead it's a checker which checks some things that a
validator would also check but also checks some other things, and it
doesn't check everything that a validator would check.

It is also highly configurable and you can play with the settings to
make it check all sorts of stuff, or to ignore all sorts of other
stuff.

Use it as well as a proper validator. Don't rely on it alone.

Steve
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

I have Dreamweaver 8 and it's set to validate XHTML 1.0
Transitional but it misses lots of errors (compared to W3C
validator)

I'm not personally familiar with the details of DW. The term
"Validator" in an SGML/XML context has a very precise meaning, you
know, but is often abused.

I just searched for the term validator in conjunction with dreamweaver
8, and the only references I found seemed to be about an
"accessibility validator". That would seem to me to be doubly
misleading, since accessibility isn't something that can be
mechanically "validated" - but to pursue that might be a digression
away from what you're really interested in.

Are we really talking about the same thing?
For example (and this is only on one page) it hasn't picked up my
erroneous use of more than one "id" element, and missed a "end tag
for "img" omitted but OMITTAG NO was specified". Plus it misses a
"required attribute "alt" not specified" and even an extra </div>
where a div was never opened

If this claims to be an HTML validator (in the technical sense), then
on your evidence it has to be a lie.
I've been relying on dreamweaver's validator which is why so many
mistakes have crept in as I've modified, checked an uploaded. I just
wondered if it was known that Dreamweavers validator is useless?

It may well be that, like the improperly-named CSE "validator", it
carries out some useful checks - if only one knows what those checks
are - and what are their limitations.
It's supposed to be a professional tool.

Most "professional" web pages are invalid HTML, you know. Some of us
think this is a bad idea, however (quite apart from it being a WAI
violation in itself).

The mere fact that you use tool X to compose your pages, does not rule
out the possibility of using tools Y and Z to check the quality of the
result in various ways, if you so choose. In fact, I'd recommend it,
since, if tool X can't or won't produce valid HTML, what possible
guarantee could you get that an HTML verifier from the same house
would be able to reveal its faults?

Certainly my colleague who makes pages with DW does not omit to submit
them to the W3C validator, as well as to their CSS checker, and repair
the results; as well as to a third party accessibility verifier, and
giving due consideration to its alerts. If working on a larger scale,
one can install this or equivalent software locally.

While researching this reply to you, google suggested
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php?topic=11583.msg81830
But that was about the DW *accessibility* so-called *validator*, not
an HTML syntax validator, so this may or may not be what you're on
about.

hth
 
N

Neredbojias

With neither quill nor qualm, xyZed quothed:
I asked this question on the Dreamweaver site and despite adding a
second post it still lies dead in the water after several days with no
one caring to comment.

I have Dreamweaver 8 and it's set to validate XHTML 1.0 Transitional
but it misses lots of errors (compared to W3C validator)

For example (and this is only on one page) it hasn't picked up my
erroneous use of more than one "id" element, and missed a "end tag
for "img" omitted but OMITTAG NO was specified". Plus it misses a
"required attribute "alt" not specified" and even an extra </div>
where a div was never opened

I've been relying on dreamweaver's validator which is why so many
mistakes have crept in as I've modified, checked an uploaded. I just
wondered if it was known that Dreamweavers validator is useless? It's
supposed to be a professional tool.

It's the same in politics. If you know what you can (truthfully) say
isn't what the people want to hear, you don't say anything at all. Or
you lie.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

xyZed said:
I have Dreamweaver 8 and it's set to validate XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Are these new documents? If so, they should be Strict, rather than
Transitional, which is for converting (transitioning <g>) old legacy
documents that have bits you can't change for one reason or another.

Whether you use XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.0, I will leave for others to
discuss.
 
X

xyZed

There is circumstantial evidence that on Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:54:56
› xyZed wrote:

› > I have Dreamweaver 8 and it's set to validate XHTML 1.0 Transitional

› Are these new documents? If so, they should be Strict, rather than
› Transitional, which is for converting (transitioning <g>) old legacy
› documents that have bits you can't change for one reason or another.

› Whether you use XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.0, I will leave for others to
› discuss.

Thanks for all the replies. The Dreamweaver newsgroup weren't
interested for some reason. The Dreamweaver option is, "check
page/validate markup" which implies it will validate markup but it is
a useless tool in my experience unless there is some setting needing
adjusting. It does pick up some errors but lots of obvious ones go
unchecked.

I was writing all my markup in XHTML 1.0 strict but was bothered by
the fact it wouldn't allow me to open affiliate sites in a separate
window. I know it's potentially contentious, but I really think if
someone clicks a link which goes to a different site I would prefer
them to do so in a fresh window. Even as I type it, it sounds a bit
dictatorial though ;-)

Other than the opening of links with target="_blank" my pages
validated with XHTML strict (apart from the useless affiliate
javascript links which is another post) Should I seriously consider
switching to strict?



--

Free washing machine help and advice.

www.washerhelp.co.uk

www.xyzed.co.uk/newsgroups/top-posting.html
 
D

David Dorward

xyZed said:
I was writing all my markup in XHTML 1.0 strict but was bothered by
the fact it wouldn't allow me to open affiliate sites in a separate
window. I know it's potentially contentious, but I really think if
someone clicks a link which goes to a different site I would prefer
them to do so in a fresh window. Even as I type it, it sounds a bit
dictatorial though ;-)

It is. Most browsers have options to let a user open a link in a new window
or tab (usually by middle clicking it) when they choose to. Likewise, most
browsers display the target URL in the status bar, so the user can glance
at that and see that the link goes to an external site (if that is a factor
in their decision).

Most browsers won't inform the user that the author wants the link to open
in a new window, and I'm now aware of any which allow the user to
selectively disable such hints.

Should a new window be opened, then it is not uncommon for both the original
and new window to be maximised. This means that it isn't obvious that a new
window has opened. The only clue is that the back button doesn't work. I've
seen mention (no, I haven't got the references to hand) of studies which
show a strong tenancy for users to give up, type another URL in the address
bar and carry on. Then, when they finish, they close their window, discover
another window underneath go "Oh, that's what happened to that site", and
close that window too since they've finished.
Other than the opening of links with target="_blank" my pages
validated with XHTML strict (apart from the useless affiliate
javascript links which is another post) Should I seriously consider
switching to strict?

Yes.
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

There is circumstantial evidence that on Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:54:56

HTML/4.01 rather than 4.0, hmmm?
I was writing all my markup in XHTML 1.0 strict but was bothered by
the fact it wouldn't allow me to open affiliate sites in a separate
window. I know it's potentially contentious,

If that's your only reason for using "transitional", then I would find
it annoying - except on browsers which have the option for me to
defeat it ;-)

Of course, I'm hardly a typical web reader; but there are lots of
other reports of ordinary folk being annoyed or confused by the
throwing of a new window. Indeed for someone who is low on resources,
the throwing of a new window *could* crash their browser, hang their
operating system, etc., so maybe it's nicer to leave the decision to
them. There are less harmful ways to signal that some links are
internal to your enterprise whereas others are external, if you feel
that this is important to you. The BBC (to take one example) seems
quite capable of opening web sites for which "The BBC is not
responsible...", without feeling the need to break my browser's Back
function. I'm looking at news.bbc.co.uk in this specific example.
Other than the opening of links with target="_blank" my pages
validated with XHTML strict (apart from the useless affiliate
javascript links which is another post)

You mean inlined JS ? That would seem to be a problem, especially if
they insist on using invalid syntax (I mean, "insist" to the point of
refusing payment if one corrects their syntax errors).

But, that issue aside, inlined JS is less of a problem in HTML syntax
than in XHTML; and anyway should not be relevant to your *other*
choice, of strict versus transitional.
Should I seriously consider switching to strict?

I can't tell you what you *should* do, but I've been steadily adapting
my own legacy pages to strict. Except for the ones which offer
samples of legacy markup for tutorial purposes, that is :-}

As far as I'm concerned, though, the browsers that are out there are
still somewhat more tuned to HTML than to XHTML, so I've made my
choice (for now) accordingly.

Hardly any of what passes for XHMTL on the web today would be really
fit to offer as real XHTML, though. So, the fact that one sees
increasing amounts of what purports to be XHTML need not make anyone
despondent about the status of HTML. On the other hand, it certainly
*should* make them despondent about the status of XHTML - as Hixie's
well known rant also points out, in its own way.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Alan said:
HTML/4.01 rather than 4.0, hmmm?

But of course. I found a crumb of hobnob stuck under the <oomph> the
.... One key.

(I know I stabbed at it with the left pinkie...)
 
?

=?windows-1252?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

xyZed wrote :

[snipped]
I was writing all my markup in XHTML 1.0 strict but was bothered by
the fact it wouldn't allow me to open affiliate sites in a separate
window. I know it's potentially contentious, but I really think if
someone clicks a link which goes to a different site I would prefer
them to do so in a fresh window. Even as I type it, it sounds a bit
dictatorial though ;-)

Other than the opening of links with target="_blank" my pages
validated with XHTML strict (apart from the useless affiliate
javascript links which is another post) Should I seriously consider
switching to strict?

Any new document should be declared with a strict DTD.
Unless you really know what you're doing, don't use XHTML 1.0; use HTML
4.01 rather.
Like others, I recommend you use the W3C markup validator and not
DreamWeaver's "validator".

If you really need to have some links open documents into a new window,
then, at least, follow usability and accessibility guidelines on this:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/DOM:window.open#Usability_issues

- one of them being to not use target="_blank"
- another one of them being to clearly identify links which will open a
new window or will re-use/recycle an already opened one.

Gérard
 
X

xyZed

There is circumstantial evidence that on Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:06:25
› Any new document should be declared with a strict DTD.
› Unless you really know what you're doing, don't use XHTML 1.0; use HTML
› 4.01 rather.

If I was starting from scratch and I knew what I know now I would
probably have used just HTML, but I really don't have time to go over
all my markup and get rid of all the XHTML stuff. When embarking on
web design I read books which convinced me to use XHTML. Would it be
acceptable to use the Strict XHTML 1.1 DTD?

Is there an accepted problem with XHTML strict, or is it just a
preference by some to stick with HTML.4.1 because they see little
tangible benefit with XHTML?

› Like others, I recommend you use the W3C markup validator and not
› DreamWeaver's "validator".

I've learnt that lesson. It's ridiculous that Dreamweaver 8 can't
perform such a simple task though.

› If you really need to have some links open documents into a new window,
› then, at least, follow usability and accessibility guidelines on this:

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/DOM:window.open#Usability_issues

Will do. Thanks for link.



--

Free washing machine help and advice.

www.washerhelp.co.uk

www.xyzed.co.uk/newsgroups/top-posting.html
 
D

David Dorward

xyZed said:
If I was starting from scratch and I knew what I know now I would
probably have used just HTML, but I really don't have time to go over
all my markup and get rid of all the XHTML stuff.

If it's XHTML then it should be relatively trivial to convert it to HTML -
with an automated process. If your XHTML conforms to Appendix C then all
you should have to do is:

* Strip the xmlns attribute from the <html> element
* Strip the xml:lang attribute from same
* Replace every instance of " />" with ">" (Assuming you never use " />" as
character data - something that isn't all that likely).
* Change the doctype.

A simple multiple file search and replace will so the job.

If you haven't conformed to Appendix C then the specs forbid serving as
text/html anyway - and XSLT can convert to HTML 4.01 without too much pain.
When embarking on web design I read books which convinced me to use
XHTML. Would it be acceptable to use the Strict XHTML 1.1 DTD?

There is no such thing.

XHTML 1.1 does not have the clause which allows it to be served as
text/html, so you can pretty much forget about serving it to GoogleBot or
Internet Explorer.

XHTML 1.0 Strict has such a clause, providing you follow the guidelines in
Appendix C. These guidelines depend on bugs in browser support for HTML so
are silly at best. (And those guidelines include, to paraphrase, "Don't do
anything you can't do in HTML anyway).
Is there an accepted problem with XHTML strict, or is it just a
preference by some to stick with HTML.4.1 because they see little
tangible benefit with XHTML?

Again, no such thing as HTML 4.1. I expect you mean HTML 4.01.

The /only/ advantage of serving XHTML to HTML 4.01 clients is that you can
write XHTML and not have any work to do converting it to something sane
before serving it to clients.

If you serve XHTML as XHTML to Mozilla based clients (such as Firefox) then
you lose a some feature (including support for document.write() and
incremental rendering).

Some clients (rare, but not non-existent) don't have the bugs that Appendix
C depends on, so they will display ">" characters in the rendered page when
you have an element using XML style self-closing tag syntax.
 
?

=?windows-1252?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

xyZed wrote :
There is circumstantial evidence that on Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:06:25


If I was starting from scratch and I knew what I know now I would
probably have used just HTML, but I really don't have time to go over
all my markup and get rid of all the XHTML stuff.

With an advanced text editor, I can convert any XHTML 1.x document into
a HTML 4.01 document in less than 1 min. 2 years ago, this is what I
did: I converted my website from XHTML 1.0 strict into HTML 4.01 strict.
With a macro, I could convert any batch of XHTML 1.x documents in less
than 1 min.

When embarking on
web design I read books which convinced me to use XHTML. Would it be
acceptable to use the Strict XHTML 1.1 DTD?

There is no such thing as a Strict XHTML 1.1 DTD
Is there an accepted problem with XHTML strict, or is it just a
preference by some to stick with HTML.4.1 because they see little
tangible benefit with XHTML?

David Dorward, many others and I gave you the quick answer: use a strict
DTD and use HTML 4.01. The long answers are given at these URLs:

Say No to XHTML (excellent article summing up the issues involved):
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

XHTML is dead
http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2005/03/14/xhtml-is-dead

Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

XHTML—What’s the Point? (Draft, incomplete)
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/xhtml-the-point/

Gérard
 
X

xyZed

There is circumstantial evidence that on Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:56:24
› With an advanced text editor, I can convert any XHTML 1.x document into
› a HTML 4.01 document in less than 1 min. 2 years ago, this is what I
› did: I converted my website from XHTML 1.0 strict into HTML 4.01 strict.
› With a macro, I could convert any batch of XHTML 1.x documents in less
› than 1 min.

I have now reverted my home page to HTML 4.01 and it validates. It
took me just 3 or 4 mins including uploading and validating. I agree
with you, and Dave, that it's no where near as big a job as I thought.

Thanks for the links.

The only problem I have is in not being able to open affiliate links
in another window. Although I agree we shouldn't open new windows for
people, I believe a substantial majority of people just don't know how
to open a link in a new window. I'm sure many (like me) do prefer to
use a new window so that the original site remains where I left it if
and when I've finished looking at the new site . I do agree it should
be a user choice, I just wish everyone new how to open in a new window
themselves.

--

Free washing machine help and advice.

www.washerhelp.co.uk

www.xyzed.co.uk/newsgroups/top-posting.html
 
?

=?windows-1252?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=

xyZed wrote :
There is circumstantial evidence that on Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:56:24


I have now reverted my home page to HTML 4.01 and it validates. It
took me just 3 or 4 mins including uploading and validating. I agree
with you, and Dave, that it's no where near as big a job as I thought.

Thanks for the links.

The only problem I have is in not being able to open affiliate links
in another window. Although I agree we shouldn't open new windows for
people, I believe a substantial majority of people just don't know how
to open a link in a new window.


2 questions.

1- What makes you *so sure* that a substantial majority of people just
don't know how to open a link in a new window?

2- Let's say 12% of people do not know how to open a link in a new
window. Now, if your links open new windows, do you expect them to be
able to manage the taskbar?
Allow me to provide you some quotes:

"Research shows that most users don't like to run more than one
application at a time. In fact, many users are confused by multiple
applications."
Windows User Experience team,
Microsoft Windows User Experience Frequently Asked Questions: Why is the
taskbar at the bottom of the screen?,
March 2001
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwui/html/winuifaq.asp


"(...) some people can use Windows applications for years without
understanding the concept of task switching. (When I point to the task
bar and ask them what it's for, they can't tell me.) (...) spawning
second browser windows can completely throw users off track because it
removes the one thing they are sure how to use: the 'Back' button.(...)
In another recent study, six out of 17 users had difficulty with
multiple windows, and three of them required assistance to get back to
the first window and continue the task.
Carolyn Snyder, Seven tricks that Web users don't know: 7. Second
browser windows, June 2001
http://www.snyderconsulting.net/article_7tricks.htm#7

(...) Users often don't notice that a new window has opened, especially
if they are using a small monitor where the windows are maximized to
fill up the screen. So a user who tries to return to the origin will be
confused by a grayed out Back button. Jakob Nielsen, The Top Ten New
Mistakes of Web Design: 2. Opening New Browser Windows, May 30, 1999
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990530.html


"(...) The biggest fault with pop-ups is that it takes the focus away
from the main browser window, and this can be disconcerting. It presents
general usability issues aside from accessibility. How often have you
seen someone launch a pop-up and then inadvertently click back on the
launcher window and thinking that nothing's happened, click the link
again with nothing happening? Of course the window has opened but is now
under the launcher window, and only moving down to the task-bar and
selecting the window from there will solve this. (...) To address the
issue of a window losing focus, you can use JavaScript to re-set the focus."
Ian Lloyd, tutorial at Accessify.com, November 20th 2002


"In all dominant browsers, using the <a target="_blank"> tag to force a
link to open in a new window breaks the Back button. The new window does
not retain the browser history of the previous window, so the "Back"
button is disabled. This is incredibly confusing, even for me, and I've
been using the web for 10 years. In 2002, it's amazing that people still
do this."
Mark Pilgrim,
Dive Into Accessibility: not opening new windows, 2002
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html

You can find more interesting quotes related to this topic at

http://www.gtalbot.org/Netscape7Section/Popup/PopupAndNetscape7.html

I'm sure many (like me) do prefer to
use a new window so that the original site remains where I left it if
and when I've finished looking at the new site .

The trend is not to open a new window but to open a new tab for this
sort of surfing... and to let the user do that all by himself. The
growing popularity of tab-capable browsers gives such choice,
flexibility and capability. There is an UI icon for opening a new tab in
tab-capable browsers, which is not the case for non-tab-capable browsers
for opening a new window.

Another reason why people using a tab-capable browser will prefer to
open a tab is that javascript-initiated new windows often are created
with the script author trying deliberately to remove chrome
functionalities and toolbar presences... which will not be possible with
tab-capable browsers. The user is assured of using the same UI that he
prefers when viewing a page. User prefer UI consistency
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/DOM:window.open#Avoid_resorting_to_window.open.28.29

Just a few days ago, Microsoft confirmed that script authors will not be
able to force the opening of resources into tab.


I do agree it should
be a user choice, I just wish everyone new how to open in a new window
themselves.

Well, then explain it to those who don't: that way, you empower the
users, you give them control, you won't alienate them.
E.g.: some sites (e.g. w3schools.com:
http://www.w3schools.com/largetext.htm ) rightly explain to their users
how to increase text size if they feel the need to increase the font
size. That's a lot better than to create a script and put an icon in the
webpage to do so. Show them how to use their browsers and empower them;
don't alienate them and don't misuse javascript.

Gérard
 
X

xyZed

There is circumstantial evidence that on Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:51:47
› 2 questions.

› 1- What makes you *so sure* that a substantial majority of people just
› don't know how to open a link in a new window?

Sorry, I meant to say a substantial percentage. I started saying the
majority then realised it was a sweeping statement and changed it to
substantial percentage but didn't delete "majority". Even so it's
still a sweeping statement. What I mean is there are enough people to
matter.

Thanks for your lengthy thoughts on the matter. I'm convinced. Of
course I was convinced before, but hung on to the easy way out. I will
get rid of all the target="_blank" and instead place several
instructions on how to open in a new window (or tab) if required
around my site.

--

Free washing machine help and advice.

www.washerhelp.co.uk

www.xyzed.co.uk/newsgroups/top-posting.html
 
A

Andy Dingley

xyZed said:
Other than the opening of links with target="_blank" my pages
validated with XHTML strict (apart from the useless affiliate
javascript links which is another post) Should I seriously consider
switching to strict?

There are two benefits to Strict.

- It triggers standards modes in browser CSS rendering.

- It compels you not to use certain bad features left behind in
transitional (e.g. <font>)

Now the first one is important. You really do need to trigger this, but
you can also do it with transitional (if you use exactly the right
doctype).

The second one is also important. But if you know what you're doing,
then you can avoid these elements anyway, even if labelled under a
Transitional doctype. The doctype alone does not make your code any
better! It's not writing rubbish into your code that stops it being
rubbish, not voodoo doctypes.

As you've also noticed, then target disappears too. This is a bad thing
- target was removed in favour of its future replacement, not because
it's obsolete. The _use_ of target is also a usability question, not an
implementation question. If you want to use target for your pages, then
go ahead and do so. Do it either by switching to Trans (as noted above)
or by writing invalid code under Strict. A known invalidity isn't the
worst thing in the world.

Most of all though, ditch the <font> bogosities. What you do is more
important than how you label it.

XHTML 1.1 is still unusable (forces you into XML, which the web just
doesn't support yet)
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

There are two benefits to Strict.

- It triggers standards modes in browser CSS rendering.

While I agree with the general advice to use Strict, I wouldn't want
to over-state the case.

According to http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/
it would appear that Konq is the only listed browser which
cannot be kept out of quirks mode when using a transitional DOCTYPE.

All others will use either standards or almost-standards mode in
the face of a 4.01 DOCTYPE with the URL, even Transitional.

[other good points snipped]
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,763
Messages
2,569,563
Members
45,039
Latest member
CasimiraVa

Latest Threads

Top