<noscript> validation error with XHTML

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Burton Figg, Dec 30, 2003.

  1. Burton Figg

    Burton Figg Guest

    My homepage, www.jimpix.co.uk uses transitional XHTML.

    The whole thing validates except one line:

    <noscript><img height="1" width="1" alt=""
    src="http://u0.extreme-dm.com/0.gif?tag=riggott&amp;j=n" /></noscript>

    I get this error on this page:

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.jimpix.co.uk

    Line 106, column 18: document type does not allow element "noscript" here;
    missing one of "object", "applet", "map", "iframe", "button", "ins", "del"
    start-tag

    this is pointing to the start of the <noscript> tag.

    I need the code to enable a site tracker I use (XTreme Tracking).

    I have had a look on usenet and the web, but can't find anything to help
    solve it.

    Thanks

    Jim
     
    Burton Figg, Dec 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Burton Figg wrote:

    > Line 106, column 18: document type does not allow element "noscript" here;
    > missing one of "object", "applet", "map", "iframe", "button", "ins", "del"


    You have tried to put a noscript inside a paragraph:

    <p>...<noscript>...</noscript>...</p>

    This is not allowed thanks to the weird content model of the <noscript/>
    element. (A sensible content model can't be done, due to the limitations
    of SGML DTDs.)

    Instead, try something like:

    <p>...</p><noscript><p>...</p></noscript><p>...</p>

    Or, as a strange (but valid) workaround:

    <p>...<object><noscript>...</noscript></object>...</p>

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 30, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Burton Figg

    Steve R. Guest

    Burton Figg wrote in message ...
    > My homepage, www.jimpix.co.uk uses transitional XHTML.
    > The whole thing validates except one line:


    Forget the validation, those long thin lines of text butting right up
    against the edges of the monitor are a nightmare for reading on 1024x768 or
    larger.

    You ought to put the whole thing in a table at 85-90% width, to make it
    more *pleasant* to read.
     
    Steve R., Dec 30, 2003
    #3
  4. Quoth the raven named Steve R.:

    > Burton Figg wrote in message ...
    >
    >>My homepage, www.jimpix.co.uk uses transitional XHTML.
    >>The whole thing validates except one line:

    >
    > Forget the validation, those long thin lines of text butting right up
    > against the edges of the monitor are a nightmare for reading on 1024x768 or
    > larger.
    >
    > You ought to put the whole thing in a table at 85-90% width, to make it
    > more *pleasant* to read.


    <g> But the page states:
    "No Tables
    This page uses no tables, thanks to the CSS freely available from
    bluerobot."

    How about removing the zero margins and padding from the body in the CSS?

    He should validate the CSS as well. I doubt if: .newsy {z`
    will pass. There are a number of errors.
    <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jimpix.co.uk%2F&warning=1&profile=css2&usermedium=all>

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Dec 30, 2003
    #4
  5. Burton Figg

    DU Guest

    Steve R. wrote:

    > Burton Figg wrote in message ...
    >
    >>My homepage, www.jimpix.co.uk uses transitional XHTML.
    >>The whole thing validates except one line:

    >
    >
    > Forget the validation, those long thin lines of text butting right up
    > against the edges of the monitor are a nightmare for reading on 1024x768 or
    > larger.
    >
    > You ought to put the whole thing in a table at 85-90% width, to make it
    > more *pleasant* to read.
    >
    >


    Table design are a nightmare on the web right now and is certainly not
    recommendable.

    Why tables for layout is stupid:
    problems defined, solutions offered
    http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

    The problem with using tables
    http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/06problems.html

    All browsers have default margin or padding (even border too) values for
    root element and body element. By removing these, one makes his webpages
    harder to read. By not defining any margin (and padding) on root element
    and on body, one makes his webpage easier to reaed.

    DU
     
    DU, Dec 30, 2003
    #5
  6. Burton Figg

    Steve R. Guest

    DU < wrote in message ...
    > Table designs are a nightmare on the web right now


    A nightmare !!!!! You've got to be joking. The websites I look at which are
    table -based load a damn sight more quickly than most of the CSS based
    ones.

    > and is certainly not recommendable.


    By what *official* body ?

    > Why tables for layout is stupid:
    > http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/


    Just read through it. What a load of tosh. Anyone who creates tables the
    way that website suggests ought to need their heads examined. A HUGE
    exaggeration.

    Why CSS doesn't work very well
    http://www.Just look at the problems people on the HTML newsgroups are
    having with CSS
     
    Steve R., Dec 30, 2003
    #6
  7. Steve R. wrote:

    > DU < wrote in message ...
    >> Table designs [are] certainly not recommendable.

    >
    > By what *official* body ?


    What would you class as official? How about the body where Tim
    Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web has an office? I think when it
    comes to the WWW, such a body is probably the most "official". This body
    is the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

    You should read the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines:

    (Guideline 3)
    | Misusing markup for a presentation effect (e.g., using a table for
    | layout or a header to change the font size) makes it difficult for users
    | with specialized software to understand the organization of the page or
    | to navigate through it.

    (Guideline 5)
    | Tables should be used to mark up truly tabular information ("data
    | tables"). Content developers should avoid using them to lay out pages
    | ("layout tables").

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 30, 2003
    #7
  8. Burton Figg

    DU Guest

    Steve R. wrote:

    > DU < wrote in message ...
    >
    >>Table designs are a nightmare on the web right now

    >
    >
    > A nightmare !!!!! You've got to be joking.


    Try to upgrade and update a page based on table design, in particular
    nested tables: that is a nightmare to do.

    The websites I look at which are
    > table -based load a damn sight more quickly than most of the CSS based
    > ones.
    >


    More quickly? Ok. Bring up the urls, your loading time and parsing time
    numbers so that we can all verify your claims here and compare results.
    Go ahead, we're all waiting.

    >
    >>and is certainly not recommendable.

    >
    >
    > By what *official* body ?
    >


    By a lot of accessibility and usability bodies: WAI, WAVE, Bobby,
    HiSoftware Cynthia, etc.
    By the W3C with its User Agent Accessibility Guidelines.
    By lots of IT corporations involved into webpage creation or involved
    into making their pages accessible to various user agents.

    >
    >>Why tables for layout is stupid:
    >>http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

    >
    >
    > Just read through it. What a load of tosh.


    This was presented in a seminar for web designers, you see, and given to
    web designers. And it received a lot of positive feedbacks.

    Anyone who creates tables the
    > way that website suggests ought to need their heads examined. A HUGE
    > exaggeration.
    >


    Would you use MS-Excel to create an .xls document, compose a reply,
    attach it and post it to reply to this newsgroup? Does that make sense
    for you? There is no official body which would prevent you from doing that.
    Would you use MS-Excel to answer your emails? Would that make sense to
    you? Why would you resort to tables to position text on a webpage then?

    I once took the main entrance page of Yahoo.com and then started to
    re-construct its code by removing all the tables and nested tables and
    replacing it with CSS: I reduced the page's size by over 30% and I was
    most likely creating a page which would be more interoperable and
    accessible... notwithstanding the ability to maintain, update and
    upgrade the page a lot easier afterwards.

    For every claim that you believe is an exaggeration, you can verify, put
    to the test by yourself such claim: you just have to be open-minded,
    give such claim an honest and fair test and then make up your mind based
    on your own results, practical experience.

    > Why CSS doesn't work very well
    > http://www.Just look at the problems people on the HTML newsgroups are
    > having with CSS
    >
    >


    I don't see a valid url here.
    Webpage design (and mastering CSS) is not as obvious as using Notepad
    either. It takes experience, knowledge and training/reading,etc.. in
    order to create professional, interoperable, accessible and usable
    webpages.

    Here are some people who, IMO, don't need their heads examined:

    Betsy Bruce:
    Tableless Layout in Dreamweaver Using the CSS Box Model
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/max2003/articles/sp_bbruce.html

    Drew McLellan:
    Tableless layout with Dreamweaver
    http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/dreamweaver/articles/tableless_layout.html

    CSS Layout Techniques: Look Ma, No Tables.
    http://glish.com/css/

    CSS Tableless Web Sites
    http://www.meryl.net/css/
    is a list of 900 (that's right: nine hundreds) websites using CSS
    instead of table design.

    DU
     
    DU, Dec 30, 2003
    #8
  9. Burton Figg

    Steve R. Guest

    Toby Inkster wrote in message ...
    > (Guideline 3)
    > (Guideline 5)


    Just guidelines, doesn't mean to say tables don't work perfectly well for
    layout, as in most cases if they are properly created, they do work well
    :~)
     
    Steve R., Dec 30, 2003
    #9
  10. Burton Figg

    Steve R. Guest

    DU wrote in message ...
    > More quickly? Ok. Bring up the urls, your loading time and parsing time
    > numbers so that we can all verify your claims here and compare results.
    > Go ahead, we're all waiting.


    I don't know the URLs off the top of my head, but while I'm looking at
    websites I just notice CSS based ones aren't particularly quick to load
    even when containing few images.

    I'll make a note of some sample URLs over the next few days and report back
    when I find a fair sample.
     
    Steve R., Dec 30, 2003
    #10
  11. Steve R. wrote:

    > Just guidelines,


    Well you didn't ask for hard and fast rules -- just a statement that
    layout tables are not recommendable.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 31, 2003
    #11
  12. DU wrote:

    > Steve R. wrote:
    >
    >> The websites I look at which are table -based load a damn sight more
    >> quickly than most of the CSS based ones.

    >
    > More quickly?


    To be fair, this depends on your rendering engine. Trident (IE for
    Windows) for instance will not attempt to render a table until the
    "</table>" tag has been downloaded. This results in tables loading
    s-l-o-w-l-y. NN4 is the same I believe.

    Presto (Opera 7 and above) on the other hand renders tables on a
    cell-by-cell basis, so will display a table much faster.

    Not sure which behaviour Gecko exhibits.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 31, 2003
    #12
  13. Burton Figg

    DU Guest

    Toby A Inkster wrote:
    > DU wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Steve R. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The websites I look at which are table -based load a damn sight more
    >>>quickly than most of the CSS based ones.

    >>
    >>More quickly?

    >
    >
    > To be fair, this depends on your rendering engine.


    It depends on several factors. If there are nested tables: that one is a
    very important factor which makes page parsing and page rendering slower
    and more problematic.
    Tips For Authoring Fast-loading HTML Pages:
    "(...)Either replace table-based layout with divs or break tables into
    smaller tables that can be displayed without having to download the
    entire page contents.
    Rather than deeply nesting tables as in:

    <TABLE>
    <TABLE>
    <TABLE>
    ...
    </TABLE>
    </TABLE>
    </TABLE>

    use unnested tables or divs as in

    <TABLE>...</TABLE>
    <TABLE>...</TABLE>
    <TABLE>...</TABLE>
    "
    http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/page-load-performance/

    Even Opera 7 is well aware of nested tables when loading a page.
    Open any page and then View/Style/Check User mode and then select Show
    Structural elements and then scroll all the way down the page you're
    viewing: you'll get a report of how many nested tables there are in a
    page. I checked the
    http://www.yahoo.com
    page today and it has 135 font tags and 62 nested tables! (Opera 7.50 PR
    1 build 3494)
    Internally, there is a mechanism by which Opera 7 knows and counts
    nested tables.

    It depends also on how complex a table is (with rowspan here and there,
    colspan, special rules and frame, border, border-collapse, etc..) and if
    the markup is well-formed. It is known that closing <td> helps parsing
    and rendering of tables for all browsers while closing <td> in HTML 4.01
    transitional is not mandatory.
    "Unlike Extensible Markup Language (XML), HTML has the notion of
    implicitly closed tags. This includes frame, img, li, and p. If you
    don't close these tags, Internet Explorer renders your pages just fine.
    If you do close your tags, Internet Explorer will render your pages even
    faster."
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/perf/perftips.asp#Close_Your_Tags
    That's precisely the case for <td> in HTML 4.01 transitional.

    Trident (IE for
    > Windows) for instance will not attempt to render a table until the
    > "</table>" tag has been downloaded.


    That's mentioned in W3C CSS2: non-progressive rendering mode for tables.
    You can use tables and speed up rendering by declaring <col width="n">
    etc.. where n is an integer and then declaring table-layout:fixed in
    which case you'll trigger the progressive rendering for table.

    This results in tables loading
    > s-l-o-w-l-y. NN4 is the same I believe.
    >
    > Presto (Opera 7 and above) on the other hand renders tables on a
    > cell-by-cell basis, so will display a table much faster.
    >


    Not necessarly; it depends if sufficient declarations are done along
    with a css table-layout:fixed declaration. Declaring table-layout:fixed
    is not enough to trigger progressive rendering mode in any/all browser.
    The css declaration requires more info and declarations to make browsers
    really comply: that's all explained in the spec.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#propdef-table-layout

    DU

    > Not sure which behaviour Gecko exhibits.
    >
     
    DU, Dec 31, 2003
    #13
  14. DU wrote:

    > Internally, there is a mechanism by which Opera 7 knows and counts
    > nested tables.


    Yes -- it's called CSS 2 -- and Opera 6+ is the only browser that supports
    this part of it.

    html { counter-reset: nt 0; }
    table table { counter-increment: nt; }
    body:after { content: "There are " counter(nt) " nested tables."; }

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Dec 31, 2003
    #14
    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. William.R.Reisen
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    444
    Alan Wood
    Jul 25, 2003
  2. natric

    About NOSCRIPT positionning

    natric, Apr 20, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    800
    Toby A Inkster
    Apr 26, 2004
  3. Jonathan N. Little
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    5,685
    Jonathan N. Little
    Feb 6, 2005
  4. Samuël van Laere

    Noscript and accessibility??

    Samuël van Laere, Apr 24, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,804
    Richard Cornford
    Apr 27, 2005
  5. sevillad
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    414
    sevillad
    Sep 4, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page