Where to place noframes tag XHTML

Discussion in 'HTML' started by sorry.no.email@spamsux.com, Mar 25, 2006.

  1. Guest

    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.
     
    , Mar 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve Pugh Guest

    wrote:

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


    Inside the outermost frameset.

    Steve
    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Mar 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, wrote:

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


    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
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Mar 25, 2006
    #3
  4. OT (was Re: Where to place noframes tag XHTML)

    While the city slept,
    () feverishly typed...

    > Hi,

    [...]

    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

    --
    Nigel Moss http://www.nigenet.org.uk
    Mail address will bounce. | Take the DOG. out!
    "Your mother ate my dog!", "Not all of him!"
     
    nice.guy.nige, Apr 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Re: OT (was Re: Where to place noframes tag XHTML)

    nice.guy.nige wrote:

    > While the city slept,
    > () feverishly typed...
    >
    >> Hi,

    > [...]
    >
    > 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
    >

    I do not think it is real.

    Runja
     
    Runja Hasslich, Apr 3, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    Re: OT (was Re: Where to place noframes tag XHTML)

    Runja Hasslich wrote:

    > nice.guy.nige wrote:
    >
    > > While the city slept,
    > > () feverishly typed...
    > >
    > >> Hi,

    > > [...]
    > >
    > > 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
    > >

    > I do not think it is real.


    Perhaps you should check whois:

    Registrant:
    Linecom +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

    --
    Hywel
     
    , Apr 3, 2006
    #6
    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. Toralf
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,588
    Ken Dopierala Jr.
    Oct 4, 2004
  2. shruds
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    933
    John C. Bollinger
    Jan 27, 2006
  3. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    952
  4. chronos3d
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    834
    Andy Dingley
    Dec 5, 2006
  5. Usha2009
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,174
    Usha2009
    Dec 20, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page