Where to place noframes tag XHTML

S

sorry.no.email

Hi,

I am tearing my hair out to find the right place to place the
noframes tage to satisfy the XHTML w3c validator. The following is
incorrect, can someone please help me!!!:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>Strong Family Site</title>
</head>
<frameset rows="175,*" cols="*">
<frame src="header.html" name="" scrolling="no" noresize="noresize"
id="" title="topFrame" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0"
marginheight="0"/>
<frameset rows="*" cols="135,*">
<frame src="navigation.html" name="" scrolling="auto"
noresize="noresize" id="" title="leftFrame" frameborder="0"
marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" />
<frame src="welcome.html" name="main" frameborder="0"
scrolling="auto" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" id="main" />
</frameset>
</frameset>
<noframes></noframes>
</html>

Thanks to anybody who can guide me with this one,

Andrew.
 
A

Alan J. Flavell

I am tearing my hair out to find the right place to place the
noframes tage to satisfy the XHTML w3c validator.
Click to expand...

That seems a back-to-front way of describing your problem.

The point of doing validation is to assure yourself that you're
following the published specification. So, surely the aim of the
exercise is to follow the specification - not to "satisfy the
validator" as you put it. So the first place to seek enlightenment,
in this as well as any future set-to with the validator, would be the
specification. The spec is http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ , but, since
that really only shows how HTML/4.01 can be reformulated into XHTML,
you probably want to first consult the HTML/4.01 spec for details:

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/frames.html#h-16.4.1

and then mentally adjust that as necessary for XHTML.

Thus you see where the <noframes> element belongs, and what it needs
to contain. Yours is empty, so it can't pass validation, no matter
where you put it. And the example that's given in the HTML4 spec
cannot work in XHTML because it assumes an implicit <body> tag, which
XHTML doesn't allow. So you need to enclose your content in a body
element. Like this fragment:

[...]
</frameset>
<noframes>
<body><p>Meaningful content here!</p></body>
</noframes>
</frameset>

</html>

If you're still unclear, after having checked the validator's detailed
report and FAQ for explanations of common problems, then show which
part of the spec you're having problems understanding (as well as
including the text of the validator report), and someone will be
better able to advise you.

And I see that the validator is unhappy with other things in your
sample, which you haven't yet fixed.

Didn't anyone mention that frames are not generally well-liked?
Although originally invented by Netscape, they took them off the main
part of their own web site within about half a year of starting to use
them.

As for nested framesets, well...

If you're going to move from HTML to XHTML, there are several other
things which call for attention, but which don't necessarily cause the
validator to report an error. The compatibility guidelines of
XHTML/1.0 appendix C are a bit of a muddle, but they *do* need your
attention. It's no use just putting a "meta http-equiv" into XHTML in
order to define the character encoding - that feature has no meaning
to XHTML proper, it's only used as a compatibility feature for sending
XHTML as text/html. If you aren't bothering to create proper XHTML in
the first place, one would have to ask what's your aim in trying to
call something XHTML when it's really only (bad) HTML? I'd have to
recommend continuing to write HTML/4.01, correctly, unless and until
you're ready to take XHTML fully on board.

Have fun
 
N

nice.guy.nige

While the city slept, (e-mail address removed)
([email protected]) feverishly typed...
Hi,
Click to expand...
[...]

As an aside, do you own the domain spamsux.com, or have permission to use
it? If not, the legitimate owners may be a little annoyed with the spam they
are now getting.

Cheers,
Nige
 
R

Runja Hasslich

nice.guy.nige said:
While the city slept, (e-mail address removed)
([email protected]) feverishly typed...
Hi,
Click to expand...
[...]

As an aside, do you own the domain spamsux.com, or have permission to use
it? If not, the legitimate owners may be a little annoyed with the spam they
are now getting.

Cheers,
Nige
Click to expand...
I do not think it is real.

Runja
 
H

hywel.jenkins

Runja said:
nice.guy.nige said:
While the city slept, (e-mail address removed)
([email protected]) feverishly typed...
Hi,
Click to expand...
[...]

As an aside, do you own the domain spamsux.com, or have permission to use
it? If not, the legitimate owners may be a little annoyed with the spam they
are now getting.

Cheers,
Nige
Click to expand...
I do not think it is real.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should check whois:

Registrant:
Linecom (e-mail address removed) +82.117134545
Linecom
1 Sejongro
Jongro,Seoul,KR 100-050

Domain Name:spamsux.com
Record last updated at 2005-08-24 14:22:17
Record created on 2005/8/24
Record expired on 2006/8/24

Domain servers in listed order:
ns.induce.com ns.counter.co.kr
 

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

Similar Threads

(HTML Question) Giving a specific width for a frameset 2
Frame Changes it's fixed size 0
XHTML & frames 1
Question about frameset 6
IE6, XHTML & height in % 3
XHTML - how extend/create ELEMENT body in my DTD? 0
Hyperlink & Frames 1
mechanize: 400 Bad Request 3

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 33 (members: 0, guests: 33)
Robots: 421

Forum statistics

Threads
473,768
Messages
2,569,574
Members
45,048
Latest member
verona

Latest Threads

Top