Never Mind

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Joy Beeson, Jun 1, 2013.

  1. Joy Beeson

    Joy Beeson Guest

    I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
    almost-blank line

    </p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
    ⁂</center>
    </p><p> Just in case we like the devilled eggs:

    to mark a change of subject or a lapse in time. Each time these lines
    occur, validator.w3.org highlights the next-to-the last ">" (That is,
    the second occurrence of </p>) and says

    > No p element in scope, but a p end tag seen


    But the <p> is right there plainer than the nose on my face.

    Could this be a side effect of putting <center></center> inside a
    paragraph?

    I changed a couple, the validator no longer mentioned them, I changed
    all to

    </p><center><p> <!-- *A* -->
    ⁂</p>
    </center><p>

    And now the validator contents itself with complaining that <center>
    is obsolete, which bothers me not one whit.

    On the other hand, the validator is happy with my changes of topic,
    but I can no longer simply paste two lines above a standard paragraph
    beginning when I want to put in a marked blank line. But it took me a
    long time to figure out the obvious way to insert the old code; there
    is no doubt an easy way that at the moment escapes me; perhaps I could
    put it on a defined key such as the one I used for signatures on
    letters back when I wrote enough letters that I could remember where
    the signature key was. (Now I copy an old letter and delete the
    body.)

    And I'm going to mail this post anyway, to let you guys know that
    sometimes you explain things just by being there.


    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at comcast dot net
    http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
    The above message is a Usenet post.
    I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
     
    Joy Beeson, Jun 1, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joy Beeson

    richard Guest

    On Fri, 31 May 2013 23:12:30 -0300, Joy Beeson wrote:

    > I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
    > almost-blank line
    >
    > </p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
    > ⁂</center>
    > </p><p> Just in case we like the devilled eggs:
    >
    > to mark a change of subject or a lapse in time. Each time these lines
    > occur, validator.w3.org highlights the next-to-the last ">" (That is,
    > the second occurrence of </p>) and says
    >
    >> No p element in scope, but a p end tag seen

    >
    > But the <p> is right there plainer than the nose on my face.
    >
    > Could this be a side effect of putting <center></center> inside a
    > paragraph?
    >
    > I changed a couple, the validator no longer mentioned them, I changed
    > all to
    >
    > </p><center><p> <!-- *A* -->
    > ⁂</p>
    > </center><p>
    >
    > And now the validator contents itself with complaining that <center>
    > is obsolete, which bothers me not one whit.
    >
    > On the other hand, the validator is happy with my changes of topic,
    > but I can no longer simply paste two lines above a standard paragraph
    > beginning when I want to put in a marked blank line. But it took me a
    > long time to figure out the obvious way to insert the old code; there
    > is no doubt an easy way that at the moment escapes me; perhaps I could
    > put it on a defined key such as the one I used for signatures on
    > letters back when I wrote enough letters that I could remember where
    > the signature key was. (Now I copy an old letter and delete the
    > body.)
    >
    > And I'm going to mail this post anyway, to let you guys know that
    > sometimes you explain things just by being there.


    it should be <p><center>test</center></p>
    or <center><p>text</p></center>
    If the latter is what you are attempting, then try this
    <div class="paragraph"><p>text</p></div>
    and style the division as below.

    better â–º <p class=center"></p>
    CSS: .center { text-align:center;}

    The text you are attempting to center is a "comment".
    That will never be shown on the page regardless of where it is.

    Another method for centering an object is
    margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;
     
    richard, Jun 1, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 2013-06-01, richard wrote:
    > On Fri, 31 May 2013 23:12:30 -0300, Joy Beeson wrote:
    >
    >> I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
    >> almost-blank line
    >>
    >> </p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
    >> ⁂</center>
    >> </p><p> Just in case we like the devilled eggs:
    >>
    >> to mark a change of subject or a lapse in time. Each time these lines
    >> occur, validator.w3.org highlights the next-to-the last ">" (That is,
    >> the second occurrence of </p>) and says
    >>
    >>> No p element in scope, but a p end tag seen

    >>
    >> But the <p> is right there plainer than the nose on my face.
    >>
    >> Could this be a side effect of putting <center></center> inside a
    >> paragraph?
    >>
    >> I changed a couple, the validator no longer mentioned them, I changed
    >> all to
    >>
    >> </p><center><p> <!-- *A* -->
    >> ⁂</p>
    >> </center><p>
    >>
    >> And now the validator contents itself with complaining that <center>
    >> is obsolete, which bothers me not one whit.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, the validator is happy with my changes of topic,
    >> but I can no longer simply paste two lines above a standard paragraph
    >> beginning when I want to put in a marked blank line. But it took me a
    >> long time to figure out the obvious way to insert the old code; there
    >> is no doubt an easy way that at the moment escapes me; perhaps I could
    >> put it on a defined key such as the one I used for signatures on
    >> letters back when I wrote enough letters that I could remember where
    >> the signature key was. (Now I copy an old letter and delete the
    >> body.)
    >>
    >> And I'm going to mail this post anyway, to let you guys know that
    >> sometimes you explain things just by being there.

    >
    > it should be <p><center>test</center></p>
    > or <center><p>text</p></center>
    > If the latter is what you are attempting, then try this
    ><div class="paragraph"><p>text</p></div>
    > and style the division as below.
    >
    > better ??? <p class=center"></p>
    > CSS: .center { text-align:center;}
    >
    > The text you are attempting to center is a "comment".


    No, she's trying to center ⁂

    Though I don't understand why she doesn't use CSS.

    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson
    <http://torontowebdesign.cfaj.ca/>
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Jun 1, 2013
    #3
  4. 2013-06-01 5:12, Joy Beeson wrote:

    > I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
    > almost-blank line
    >
    > </p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
    > ⁂</center>
    > </p><p>


    Like most comments, the comment “*A*†is misleading, since the character
    used in the content is ASTERISM, “â‚â€. This character is really the
    problem you should consider: have you specified for it a reasonable list
    of font families, containing fonts that have a glyph for it? Cf. to the
    list at
    http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2042/fontsupport.htm
    Otherwise, old browsers might even be unable to display it at all.

    > Each time these lines
    > occur, validator.w3.org highlights the next-to-the last ">" (That is,
    > the second occurrence of </p>) and says
    >
    >> No p element in scope, but a p end tag seen



    That’s because the <center> tag, starting a block-level element,
    implicitly closes the open p tag, as if the markup started with

    </p><p></p><center>

    And this makes the next </p> homeless. The minimal fix is to remove that
    </p> tag. A better fix is to use

    <p align=center>⁂</p>

    though some people say you should used

    <p class=divider>⁂</p>

    together with a CSS rule like

    ..divider { text-align: center }

    And some Real Purists (like a past version of me) might tell you to use
    <hr> and just style it so that it appears as a centered asterism. (It’s
    possible by the spec, but perhaps not well enough supported yet by all
    those old browsers around.) The reason is that <hr> has always been
    defined to denote “change of topicâ€, even though it is named so that
    uneducated people would guess that it means “horizontal ruleâ€. ☺

    > Could this be a side effect of putting <center></center> inside a
    > paragraph?


    In a sense. It’s the effect of trying to put a center element inside a p
    element, which is forbidden (by HTML specs) and impossible (browsers
    behave like I described, implicitly closing the p element).

    > And now the validator contents itself with complaining that <center>
    > is obsolete, which bothers me not one whit.


    Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
    HTML5 rules, which express some people’s opinion that presentational
    markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
    keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
    choice, probably.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 1, 2013
    #4
  5. Joy Beeson

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Joy Beeson <> wrote:

    > I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
    > almost-blank line
    >
    > </p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
    > ⁂</center>
    > </p><p>


    If you do not want to make the safeguards JK recommended about fonts
    and you are not worried otherwise, use an image of the asterisks. I
    give you a choice for the alt text which can come in play if images
    are off, you might choose yet another alt replacement if you wish.

    <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/beetson.html>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 1, 2013
    #5
  6. Joy Beeson

    Luuk Guest

    On 01-06-2013 12:00, dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Joy Beeson <> wrote:
    >
    >> I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
    >> almost-blank line
    >>
    >> </p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
    >> ⁂</center>
    >> </p><p>

    >
    > If you do not want to make the safeguards JK recommended about fonts
    > and you are not worried otherwise, use an image of the asterisks. I
    > give you a choice for the alt text which can come in play if images
    > are off, you might choose yet another alt replacement if you wish.
    >
    > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/beetson.html>
    >


    This page does not show correctly in IE10, with 'Show pictures' off

    It also show real big '*' when printing the page (=looking a preview,
    because i did not waste a 'forrest' for actually printing...)
     
    Luuk, Jun 1, 2013
    #6
  7. Joy Beeson

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>, Luuk <>
    wrote:

    > On 01-06-2013 12:00, dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Joy Beeson <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
    > >> almost-blank line
    > >>
    > >> </p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
    > >> ⁂</center>
    > >> </p><p>

    > >
    > > If you do not want to make the safeguards JK recommended about fonts
    > > and you are not worried otherwise, use an image of the asterisks. I
    > > give you a choice for the alt text which can come in play if images
    > > are off, you might choose yet another alt replacement if you wish.
    > >
    > > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/beetson.html>
    > >

    >
    > This page does not show correctly in IE10, with 'Show pictures' off
    >
    > It also show real big '*' when printing the page (=looking a preview,
    > because i did not waste a 'forrest' for actually printing...)


    Don't know much about IE10, thanks for the reminder.

    If really using, one should provide for printing, my above was just
    something quick for screen media. I did use a rather large asterisk
    set to keep sharpness for em enlargement.

    It *is* a worry using images when images are not available! Some
    browsers do behave rather differently in respect to alt text...

    Perhaps safest of all is

    <hr style="width: 80%">

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 1, 2013
    #7
  8. Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > And some Real Purists (like a past version of me) might tell you to use
    > <hr> and just style it so that it appears as a centered asterism. (It’s
    > possible by the spec, but perhaps not well enough supported yet by all
    > those old browsers around.) The reason is that <hr> has always been
    > defined to denote “change of topicâ€, even though it is named so that
    > uneducated people would guess that it means “horizontal ruleâ€. ☺



    Since it is really just a decoration and not content I think that it
    falls under the purview of CSS. I would use a class on the paragraph or
    div it the entries encompass more than one paragraph. It won't work for
    <=IE7 but since it just decoration would not impact the content IMO. Not
    sure if OP had the asterism preceeding or following entries but that is
    ease to adjust, and html entities will not work with generated content
    so either use unicode, alternative character, or use an image:


    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
    <html><head>
    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
    <title>Via CSS</title>

    <style type="text/css">
    ..entry:after { content: 'â‚'; display: block; text-align: center; }
    </style>
    </head>

    <body>
    <p class="entry">
    This is one paragraph entry...
    </p>

    <div class="entry">
    <p>
    An entry with more than one paragraphs...
    </p>
    <p>
    Second associated paragraph...
    </p>
    </div>

    <p class="entry">
    This is one paragraph entry...
    </p>

    </body></html>

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jun 1, 2013
    #8
  9. 2013-06-01 18:09, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:


    >> And some Real Purists (like a past version of me) might tell you to use
    >> <hr> and just style it so that it appears as a centered asterism. (It’s
    >> possible by the spec, but perhaps not well enough supported yet by all
    >> those old browsers around.) The reason is that <hr> has always been
    >> defined to denote “change of topicâ€, even though it is named so that
    >> uneducated people would guess that it means “horizontal ruleâ€. ☺

    >
    > Since it is really just a decoration and not content I think that it
    > falls under the purview of CSS.


    The description in the original message was “to mark a change of subject
    or a lapse in timeâ€. This sounds like a change of topic to me. (“A lapse
    of time†seems to relate to a story and imply some change of topic.) In
    speech rendering, I would expect this to be rendered as a considerable
    pause.

    That’s way <hr> would appear to be appropriate, because it has a default
    rendering that is at least tolerable for this purpose. Styling <hr> is a
    bit tricky, due to inconsistencies between browsers in its default
    rendering. But the following would work reasonably:

    hr {
    border: none;
    height: 1em;
    text-align: center;
    }
    hr:before {
    content: "***";
    }

    If you really want an asterism instead of three asterisks, contrary to
    literary tradition, you can replace "***" by "\2042".

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 1, 2013
    #9
  10. Joy Beeson

    Joy Beeson Guest

    On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
    <> wrote:

    Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.

    > Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
    > HTML5 rules, which express some people’s opinion that presentational
    > markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
    > keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
    > choice, probably.


    Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
    <!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
    "html" and doesn't say which flavor. Terms of art will mess you up
    every time. Especially when two different arts use the same term, as
    when doctors and knitters say "stockinet". (Doctors mean "one-on-one
    ribbing")

    If validators weren't as useful as spelling checkers, I'd delete
    doctypes entirely.

    --------------------------------

    After following links from the validator site, the new latest is
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    Seems to me that there are a great many more characters in that than
    are needed.

    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at comcast dot net
    http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
    The above message is a Usenet post.
    I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
     
    Joy Beeson, Jun 7, 2013
    #10
  11. Joy Beeson

    Joy Beeson Guest

    On Sat, 1 Jun 2013 01:45:18 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
    <> wrote:

    > Though I don't understand why she doesn't use CSS.


    Unless there are wing-dings I haven't yet found and removed lurking in
    ancient files, <center> is the *only* presentational element I ever
    use. Learning CSS just for that would be like shooting a flea with an
    elephant gun.

    Particularly since the file I was practicing on is the draft copy for
    a plain-text e-mail and all the <center>s drop out anyway -- I stick
    them in because it looks nice while I'm proofreading.


    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at comcast dot net
    http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
    The above message is a Usenet post.
    I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
     
    Joy Beeson, Jun 7, 2013
    #11
  12. Joy Beeson

    Joy Beeson Guest

    On Fri, 31 May 2013 23:12:30 -0300, Joy Beeson
    <> wrote:

    > there
    > is no doubt an easy way that at the moment escapes me;



    So when I closed out May and opened June, it was easier to type

    </p><center>⁂
    </center><p> <!-- *A* -->

    </p><p> Took a walk down Boys City after my nap; the


    Than to copy from the old document. This makes the validator happy,
    but it doesn't make me happy. The asterism is a separate paragraph
    and it ought to be *marked* as a separate paragraph; I don't like
    relying on deprecated tags to keep it from being appliqu&eacute;d to
    the previous paragraph.

    Not to mention that there are no letters between <center> and
    </center>, which causes my spelling checker to report it as a repeated
    word. Not good in a draft copy that gets spelling-checked after each
    modification.

    A little shuffling around produced:

    </p><center><p> <!-- *A* -->
    ⁂</p>
    </center><p> I did measure from the selvages for the two

    Which keeps both me and the validator happy, and encroaches less on
    the space reserved for content. (I place a VERY high value on being
    able to read source code as if it were plain text.)

    It also puts letters between the centers, so I could go back to using
    *** to represent the asterism, but I've become accustomed to *A*.

    (I just now noticed that "A" stands for "Asterism". I selected A
    because it was the symmetrical letter that looked best between two
    asterisks in eighty-column font.)

    This version removes the ability to paste the asterism above a new
    paragraph, but I think I can get used to pasting it as a new
    paragraph.

    And maybe there's a variation on "enter" that isn't already in use,
    that I could define as "new topic".

    Perhaps I should have separate signs for "sharp turn" and "I've been
    away from the typewriter for a while". The document contains no
    section breaks, so <hr> would do for "sharp turn". Or I could just
    say "-----------------"

    Now it's way past time to stop talking about talking about it and get
    back to doing it.



    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at comcast dot net
    http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
    The above message is a Usenet post.
    I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
     
    Joy Beeson, Jun 7, 2013
    #12
  13. Joy Beeson

    Doug Miller Guest

    Doug Miller, Jun 7, 2013
    #13
  14. Joy Beeson

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Joy Beeson <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.
    >
    > > Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
    > > HTML5 rules, which express some peopleâ•˙s opinion that presentational
    > > markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
    > > keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
    > > choice, probably.

    >
    > Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
    > <!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
    > "html" and doesn't say which flavor. Terms of art will mess you up
    > every time. Especially when two different arts use the same term, as
    > when doctors and knitters say "stockinet". (Doctors mean "one-on-one
    > ribbing")
    >
    > If validators weren't as useful as spelling checkers, I'd delete
    > doctypes entirely.


    <!doctype html> is the only one you need. And you do need it, your
    browser will operate in quirks mode if you have no doctype. I wouldn't
    bother with standalone validators, use browsers to validate your html.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Jun 7, 2013
    #14
  15. Joy Beeson

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Tim Streater <> wrote:

    > I wouldn't
    > bother with standalone validators, use browsers to validate your html.


    This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
    explained a few times.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 7, 2013
    #15
  16. Joy Beeson

    Joy Beeson Guest

    On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:43:52 +1000, dorayme <>
    wrote:

    > This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
    > explained a few times.


    Even I could see that he was off the wall.

    --
    Joy Beeson
    joy beeson at comcast dot net
     
    Joy Beeson, Jun 8, 2013
    #16
  17. Joy Beeson

    se Guest

    "Joy Beeson" <> skrev i meddelelsen
    news:...
    > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:43:52 +1000, dorayme <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
    >> explained a few times.

    >


    > Even I could see that he was off the wall.


    It isn't a good idea wiping the floor with somebody here that is
    trying to extend your knowledge. There's no sign from you of knowing
    anything of website validating.

    /se

    >
    > --
    > Joy Beeson
    > joy beeson at comcast dot net
     
    se, Jun 8, 2013
    #17
  18. Joy Beeson

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Joy Beeson <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:43:52 +1000, dorayme <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
    > > explained a few times.

    >
    > Even I could see that he was off the wall.


    He has one good practical point and that is that you should test your
    website in different browsers to see what others will see, you should
    also change the text size as you do this and you should change the
    browser size - in other words take it for a test run.

    But you cannot test your website in browsers that have not been
    created. It is almost logically impossible. Nor can you predict
    changes to browsers. Guess where the browser makers get quite a bit,
    not all, of their information from? They get it from the various
    documentations that go to informing validators. It's a big complicated
    conversation. You can help yourself by at the very least doing the
    validations that provide a sort of prima facie ok. Everything is
    provisional, but it is a handle that would be foolish to ignore.

    Put it another way, just as with many a construction of any object for
    public use, in developing you will find it very useful indeed in the
    long run to run it by the validators to pick up alleged mistakes for
    your consideration. Your remark about spell-checkers was spot on!

    If you understand a bit about these things, you will get to the stage
    of not being too worried by some flagged errors or warnings. But if
    you do not understand such things, perhaps your best bet is to make
    sure it validates and that it works in all your tests too.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 8, 2013
    #18
  19. Joy Beeson

    Lewis Guest

    In message <>
    Joy Beeson <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
    > <> wrote:


    > Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.


    >> Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
    >> HTML5 rules, which express some people’s opinion that presentational
    >> markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
    >> keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
    >> choice, probably.


    > Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
    > <!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
    > "html" and doesn't say which flavor.


    Sigh.

    <!doctype html> "says" HTML5.

    > After following links from the validator site, the new latest is
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"

    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

    Transitional should not be used, the transition happened a decade ago.
    Either write 4.01 strict or write HTML5. Transitional is the sure sign
    of laziness or ancient pages.

    --
    "I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." - Groucho
    Marx
     
    Lewis, Jun 8, 2013
    #19
  20. Joy Beeson

    Tim Streater Guest

    In article <>,
    Lewis <> wrote:

    > In message <>
    > Joy Beeson <> wrote:
    > > On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > > Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.

    >
    > >> Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
    > >> HTML5 rules, which express some people‰?™s opinion that presentational
    > >> markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
    > >> keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
    > >> choice, probably.

    >
    > > Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
    > > <!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
    > > "html" and doesn't say which flavor.

    >
    > Sigh.
    >
    > <!doctype html> "says" HTML5.


    Only to a validator. Browers only care whether you have a doctype
    or not, and will correspondingly operate either in standards or quirks
    mode.

    --
    Tim

    "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
    nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689
     
    Tim Streater, Jun 8, 2013
    #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. Lloyd Sheen
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    428
    William LaMartin
    Nov 19, 2003
  2. Greg Hurlman
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,946
    Greg Hurlman
    Dec 4, 2003
  3. Chris Jackson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    529
    Chris Jackson
    Dec 9, 2003
  4. Soren Kuula
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    468
    Henry S. Thompson
    Dec 1, 2005
  5. Kevin
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    441
    Irrwahn Grausewitz
    Oct 17, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page