W3C

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Steve, Dec 23, 2007.

  1. Steve

    Steve Guest

    Ok i am now getting very confused. Initally I was under the opinion that
    then the BR tag was ment to be <br /> to make it W3C compliant. But when I
    use there validator it says it should be <br>.

    So it it correct then that <br /> is actually XML and not HTML?

    If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying they are
    W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.

    So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 071222-0, 22/12/2007
    Tested on: 23/12/2007 19:20:28
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Steve, Dec 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve

    Els Guest

    Steve wrote:

    > Ok i am now getting very confused. Initally I was under the opinion that
    > then the BR tag was ment to be <br /> to make it W3C compliant. But when I
    > use there validator it says it should be <br>.
    >
    > So it it correct then that <br /> is actually XML and not HTML?
    >
    > If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying they are
    > W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.
    >
    > So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?


    Wrong conclusion.

    1. <br /> in XHTML, <br> in HTML
    2. If many drive through red, does that make the traffic light system
    rubbish?

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
     
    Els, Dec 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Dec 23, 1:19 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    > Ok i am now getting very confused. Initally I was under the opinion that
    > then the BR tag was ment to be <br /> to make it W3C compliant. But when I
    > use there validator it says it should be <br>.
    >
    > So it it correct then that <br /> is actually XML and not HTML?
    >
    > If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying they are
    > W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.
    >
    > So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?



    The self-closed <br /> is an xhtml tag. It is part of xhtml and not
    html. The reason is that xhtml must comply with xml rules which are
    very strict. An xhtml page could consist of code that could be written
    in html only, code that could be written as xml only or a mix.
    Everything in xml must be closed. Thus one must use a self-closed tag
    such as <br />, <img --- /> for everything that is not closed in an
    html page. Not closing anything is a very serious error in xml and can
    cause a page not to display in an xml device. Most people who write
    xhtml pages do not serve them properly as application/xhtml+xml . You
    can serve an xhtml page as the usual mime type text/html, but in that
    case you are only serving html and all of the special xhtml code has
    no use. Usually a page written in valid xhtml with no xml code will
    work mis-served as html. If an xhtml page is served properly, the a
    browser capable of true xhtml parses it as xml. Even a tiny error,
    such as a non-closed tag, can give an error message rather than a view
    of the page. No IE browser, including IE7, can display an xhtml page
    when served properly as application/xhtml+xml. If you can view a page
    that claimes to be xhtml on any IE browser, then it is not xhtml. The
    code may well be written as valid xhtml, but it is being served as
    html only. You have to resort to some tricks to get IE and other
    outdated browsers to view an xhtml page properly - for instance use
    some server side code to serve html 4.01 strict when header exchange
    reveals the browser can not support true xhtml.

    With this background, the W3C validator is quite right in finding an
    error for <br /> on a page written as html and finding an error if
    <br> is used on an xhtml page.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Dec 23, 2007
    #3
  4. Scripsit Steve:

    > Ok i am now getting very confused.


    We can see that from the Subject line.

    > Initally I was under the opinion
    > that then the BR tag was ment to be <br /> to make it W3C compliant.


    You were confused by reading about XHTML. Just stop that.

    > But when I use there validator it says it should be <br>.


    The confused and confusing material you read about apparently didn't
    tell you about doctypes.

    > So it it correct then that <br /> is actually XML and not HTML?


    No, it's both XML and HTML, but in pre-XHTML HTML, its meaning is
    completely different and it's not correctly processed by any browser
    worth mentioning, so you should not use it there. Confused? Blaim
    Cana... I mean XHTML. And you should stop reading about XHTML until you
    know that you have a real reason to know about it.

    > If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying
    > they are W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.


    The W3C has partial responsibility, since it advocates the use of "Valid
    (X)HTML!" icons, which are worse than useless and often blatant lies.
    But if someone lies about markup being valid, he's the one to put the
    main blaim on.

    > So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?


    No, XHTML as usually advertized is worse than rubbish, since it confuses
    you.

    > ---
    > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.


    You seem to have a fake signature virus, possibly masquerading as
    antivirus software.

    --
    Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Dec 23, 2007
    #4
  5. Steve

    Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:19:47
    GMT Steve scribed:

    > Ok i am now getting very confused. Initally I was under the opinion
    > that then the BR tag was ment to be <br /> to make it W3C compliant.
    > But when I use there validator it says it should be <br>.
    >
    > So it it correct then that <br /> is actually XML and not HTML?
    >
    > If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying
    > they are W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.
    >
    > So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?


    I think the previous repliers explained it all pretty darn well, but just
    to add my 2 drachmas-worth, don't use xhtml, use html 4.01 strict. Hardly
    any web author actually needs to use xhtml and most do so simply because
    they're pompous.

    Avast, Matey!

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
     
    Bone Ur, Dec 23, 2007
    #5
  6. Steve

    dorayme Guest

    In article <Xns9A0F980C95E39boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236>,
    Bone Ur <> wrote:

    > Hardly
    > any web author actually needs to use xhtml and most do so simply because
    > they're pompous.


    Perhaps some do it for this reason, but most do not. Most do it
    because they rightly or wrongly think it is the right and
    stricter thing to do, the wave of the future and all that. (I
    still keep my one effort in XHTML online as a sort of museum
    piece. For me it is part of the wave of a past foray never to be
    repeated after I learnt better from folks here).

    Btw, boji, I don't like this new name of yours. Please change it
    back. You were warmer and cuddlier and more publicly foolish (as
    in the Jukka charge against you) and slappable back then.

    Merry Xmas to you... Neredbojias!

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Dec 23, 2007
    #6
  7. Steve

    Gufus Guest

    Hi Els,

    Sunday December 23 2007, Els writes to Steve:

    > From:


    > 2. If many drive through red, does that make the traffic
    > light system rubbish?


    Hahahaha...

    Merry Christmas All!

    *
    | /'\ )))
    -*- / 0 \ | ^o^ ((
    | /'''o'\ -*- ))
    | / O * \ | ((
    /"""""""""\/'\_________||__
    /'* @ ' 0 \''\''''''''''''\
    /"""o""""'''''\ o\____________\
    /' @ x 00 o \""\''''''''''''
    /''''''''''"""""o"\ \ |#| ### | ^
    /' % * @ % * \""\|`| | O
    /'''''''''''''''''''''\;;--------- ( )
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ \ \ ( )
    | |


    Gufus
    --
    K Klement


    .... Why experiment on animals with so many lawyers out there?
     
    Gufus, Dec 24, 2007
    #7
  8. Steve

    Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:20:08
    GMT dorayme scribed:

    > In article <Xns9A0F980C95E39boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236>,
    > Bone Ur <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hardly
    >> any web author actually needs to use xhtml and most do so simply
    >> because they're pompous.

    >
    > Perhaps some do it for this reason, but most do not. Most do it
    > because they rightly or wrongly think it is the right and
    > stricter thing to do, the wave of the future and all that. (I
    > still keep my one effort in XHTML online as a sort of museum
    > piece. For me it is part of the wave of a past foray never to be
    > repeated after I learnt better from folks here).


    Much the same with me though I lost my one xhtml relic in the crash of last
    February. As for the dorks who think doing xhtml is right...they're dorks.

    > Btw, boji, I don't like this new name of yours. Please change it
    > back. You were warmer and cuddlier and more publicly foolish (as
    > in the Jukka charge against you) and slappable back then.
    >
    > Merry Xmas to you... Neredbojias!


    Yes, I'll be changing back, probably very soon. Don't wanna become
    schizophrenic, ya know. And have a Merry Christmas yourself, Do... er, I
    mean dorayme.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
     
    Bone Ur, Dec 24, 2007
    #8
    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. Alfonso Alvarez
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    694
    Alfonso Alvarez
    May 13, 2004
  2. Fredrik Elestedt

    W3C validation

    Fredrik Elestedt, Nov 25, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,175
  3. Kenneth Keeley

    How to make ASP Code Validate to a W3C Standard

    Kenneth Keeley, Dec 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    429
    Johann MacDonagh
    Dec 9, 2004
  4. Lau Lei Cheong

    Is there any "true" W3C standard browser?

    Lau Lei Cheong, Jan 11, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    465
    Lau Lei Cheong
    Jan 12, 2006
  5. Frank
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,591
    David Dorward
    May 3, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page