NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES

K

Kurda Yon

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?
 
B

Bone Ur

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')
 
H

Harlan Messinger

Kurda said:
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.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

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.
 
E

Els

Jukka said:
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.
 
R

rf

Els said:
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.
 
E

Els

rf said:
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)
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

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.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

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.
 
E

Els

Jukka said:
Scripsit Els:


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.
 
S

Sherman Pendley

Jukka K. Korpela said:
Scripsit Bone Ur:


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--
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit Sherman Pendley:
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.
 
D

dorayme

Sherman Pendley said:
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?
 
E

Els

dorayme said:
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...
 
A

Adrienne Boswell

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.
 
B

Bone Ur

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


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.
 
B

Bone Ur

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

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.
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.
 

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
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,898
Latest member
BlairH7607

Latest Threads

Top