NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Kurda Yon, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. Kurda Yon

    Kurda Yon Guest

    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?
    Kurda Yon, Nov 30, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kurda Yon

    Bone Ur Guest

    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.
    Bone Ur, Nov 30, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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?
    Harlan Messinger, Nov 30, 2007
    #3
  4. 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/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Nov 30, 2007
    #4
  5. Kurda Yon

    Els Guest

    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/
    Els, Nov 30, 2007
    #5
  6. Kurda Yon

    rf Guest

    "Els" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    rf, Nov 30, 2007
    #6
  7. Kurda Yon

    Els Guest

    rf wrote:
    > "Els" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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 :p)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Nov 30, 2007
    #7
  8. 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/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Nov 30, 2007
    #8
  9. 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/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Nov 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Kurda Yon

    Els Guest

    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/
    Els, Nov 30, 2007
    #10
  11. Kurda Yon

    rf Guest

    "Els" <> wrote in message
    news:1x2mki3e2g8ah.vjll26vxu3uw$...

    > (and apparently I managed to reply before you had the chance to set
    > this thread to ignore :p)


    I always look out for what you might have to say Els :)

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Nov 30, 2007
    #11
  12. Kurda Yon

    Els Guest

    rf wrote:

    > I always look out for what you might have to say Els :)


    I'm flattered! :)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Nov 30, 2007
    #12
  13. "Jukka K. Korpela" <> writes:

    > 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.


    Would it have hurt you to say that nicely? As in "No, the method attribute
    is optional according to the DTD."

    You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    sherm--

    --
    WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
    Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
    Sherman Pendley, Nov 30, 2007
    #13
  14. Scripsit Sherman Pendley:

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

    >
    > Would it have hurt you to say that nicely?


    Yes.

    > As in "No, the method
    > attribute is optional according to the DTD."


    That would have been pointless. The problem was the very approach of
    giving advice on validation issues without understanding what
    validation, just "thinking" that something could help, instead of taking
    a look at the DTD or at the error message that was mentioned. There are
    ideas that are so stupid that they deserve no serious comments.

    > You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.


    I'm not trying to catch flies. I'm quite happy with letting a million
    flies be right, and I'm trying keep them away from my sight.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Jukka K. Korpela, Nov 30, 2007
    #14
  15. Kurda Yon

    Els Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Scripsit Sherman Pendley:


    >> Would it have hurt you to say that nicely?

    >
    > Yes.


    Says it all.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Nov 30, 2007
    #15
  16. Kurda Yon

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Sherman Pendley <> wrote:

    > You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.


    I don't know about flies*, but I have scoured the net for a good
    non chemical way of dealing with cockroaches and none of them
    work much. Any ideas?

    --------
    * Actually, I know that meat works better with flies than honey.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2007
    #16
  17. Kurda Yon

    Els Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Sherman Pendley <> wrote:
    >
    >> You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    >
    > I don't know about flies*, but I have scoured the net for a good
    > non chemical way of dealing with cockroaches and none of them
    > work much. Any ideas?


    http://www.k12.hi.us/~rkubota/digiphoto/cockroach/roach.html

    Or, as John Bokma writes on his blog: "We like to have geckos in the
    house because their diet probably consist for a large part of juvenile
    cockroaches, an insect we really don't want to have in the house but
    is extremely hard to keep out."

    Any geckos where you live? :)

    > * Actually, I know that meat works better with flies than honey.


    I think I'd prefer to have honey in various places in the house. It
    doesn't stink like meat after a few days...

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Els, Dec 1, 2007
    #17
  18. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Els <>
    writing in news:s1i13osuc607.1meyfabmp7tpl$:

    >> I don't know about flies*, but I have scoured the net for a good
    >> non chemical way of dealing with cockroaches and none of them
    >> work much. Any ideas?

    >
    > http://www.k12.hi.us/~rkubota/digiphoto/cockroach/roach.html
    >
    > Or, as John Bokma writes on his blog: "We like to have geckos in the
    > house because their diet probably consist for a large part of juvenile
    > cockroaches, an insect we really don't want to have in the house but
    > is extremely hard to keep out."
    >


    Good thing to know. Another reason I never kill spiders, they also like
    nasty little bugs. As a matter of fact, we have a black widow we've
    named Martha, who lives under the porch. I never have bug problems, and
    I think Martha is probably well fed - I'm not going to go ask her,
    though.

    We also had a cricket living under my desk for a while, but one night
    Rolo (the cat) [http://tinyurl.com/22bjtm], got it. I miss it.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    Adrienne Boswell, Dec 1, 2007
    #18
  19. Kurda Yon

    Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:18:05 GMT
    Jukka K. Korpela scribed:

    > 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.


    Well, I did say "I think..." It was something to try. If it didn't work,
    so be it; try something else.

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


    I think you are ridiculephobic. Trying to help someone by presenting a
    suggestion as a possible solution isn't ridiculous at all, but certain
    responses to the effort can be.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
    Bone Ur, Dec 1, 2007
    #19
  20. Kurda Yon

    Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:21:09 GMT
    Jukka K. Korpela scribed:


    >> Would it have hurt you to say that nicely?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> As in "No, the method
    >> attribute is optional according to the DTD."

    >
    > That would have been pointless. The problem was the very approach of
    > giving advice on validation issues without understanding what
    > validation, just "thinking" that something could help, instead of taking
    > a look at the DTD or at the error message that was mentioned. There are
    > ideas that are so stupid that they deserve no serious comments.


    Oh hell, that isn't true at all. "Help" isn't an absolutely flawless,
    errorless entity; it's an earnest attempt to assist someone in good faith.
    And polite rebuttals aren't "pointless" except in the minds of pedants.

    >> You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

    >
    > I'm not trying to catch flies. I'm quite happy with letting a million
    > flies be right, and I'm trying keep them away from my sight.


    "The world can go to the dogs. As long as I'm right, that's all that
    really matters." The funny thing is your irrational ire is making _you_
    look more ridiculous than your "adversary".

    I shall continue to assist posters with advice I believe correct without
    checking each and every method or procedure I happen to mention. If this
    perturbs you, I'll probably enjoy it.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
    Bone Ur, Dec 1, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
  2. shruds
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    779
    John C. Bollinger
    Jan 27, 2006
  3. jimburton

    distutils `requires' tag

    jimburton, Jun 15, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    612
    jimburton
    Jun 15, 2006
  4. teo
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    532
  5. Jamie Herre
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    190
    why the lucky stiff
    Jan 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page