Why is my home page not valid XHTML?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Dennis M. Marks, Feb 24, 2004.

  1. Why is my home page not valid XHTML? Everything except for the iframe
    validates ok. Iframe is valid for XHTML 1.0 Strict.




    This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!

    Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
    parser.

    1. Line 33, column 12: there is no attribute "id" (explain...).
    <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">

    2. Line 33, column 31: there is no attribute "src" (explain...).
    <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">

    3. Line 33, column 46: element "iframe" undefined (explain...).
    ...id="commentframe" src="comments.html">

    --
    Dennis M. Marks
    http://www.dcs-chico.com/~denmarks/
    Replace domain.invalid with dcsi.net


    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Dennis M. Marks, Feb 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dennis M. Marks

    DU Guest

    Dennis M. Marks wrote:

    > Why is my home page not valid XHTML? Everything except for the iframe
    > validates ok. Iframe is valid for XHTML 1.0 Strict.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
    >
    > Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
    > parser.
    >
    > 1. Line 33, column 12: there is no attribute "id" (explain...).
    > <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    >
    > 2. Line 33, column 31: there is no attribute "src" (explain...).
    > <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    >
    > 3. Line 33, column 46: element "iframe" undefined (explain...).
    > ...id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    >


    <iframe> is *not* supported in XHTML strict.
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Strict

    <iframe> is *only* supported in XHTML transitional.
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-transitional.dtd_iframe

    DU
     
    DU, Feb 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dennis M. Marks

    Els Guest

    Dennis M. Marks wrote:

    > Why is my home page not valid XHTML? Everything except for the iframe
    > validates ok. Iframe is valid for XHTML 1.0 Strict.
    >
    > This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
    >
    > Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
    > parser.
    >
    > 1. Line 33, column 12: there is no attribute "id" (explain...).
    > <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    >
    > 2. Line 33, column 31: there is no attribute "src" (explain...).
    > <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    >
    > 3. Line 33, column 46: element "iframe" undefined (explain...).
    > ...id="commentframe" src="comments.html">


    iframes have names, iirc
    name="commentframe"

    don't know if in addition to that class would work for the
    use of css?


    --
    Els

    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
     
    Els, Feb 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Dennis M. Marks

    Mitja Guest

    "Els" <> wrote in message
    news:403ab03b$0$41752$...
    >
    >
    > Dennis M. Marks wrote:
    >
    > > Why is my home page not valid XHTML? Everything except for the iframe
    > > validates ok. Iframe is valid for XHTML 1.0 Strict.
    > >
    > > This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
    > >
    > > Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
    > > parser.
    > >
    > > 1. Line 33, column 12: there is no attribute "id" (explain...).
    > > <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    > >
    > > 2. Line 33, column 31: there is no attribute "src" (explain...).
    > > <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    > >
    > > 3. Line 33, column 46: element "iframe" undefined (explain...).
    > > ...id="commentframe" src="comments.html">

    >
    > iframes have names, iirc
    > name="commentframe"
    >
    > don't know if in addition to that class would work for the
    > use of css?
    >


    Sure it would. "Class" property has nothing to do with the id or name of
    the tag

    Mitja

    >
    > --
    > Els
    >
    > Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    > - Renato Russo -
    >
     
    Mitja, Feb 24, 2004
    #4
  5. I have read the following message from "Mitja" <>
    and have decided to lend my vast knowledge.

    The writer said:
    > "Els" <> wrote in message
    > news:403ab03b$0$41752$...
    > >
    > >
    > > Dennis M. Marks wrote:
    > >
    > > > Why is my home page not valid XHTML? Everything except for the iframe
    > > > validates ok. Iframe is valid for XHTML 1.0 Strict.
    > > >
    > > > This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!
    > > >
    > > > Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
    > > > parser.
    > > >
    > > > 1. Line 33, column 12: there is no attribute "id" (explain...).
    > > > <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    > > >
    > > > 2. Line 33, column 31: there is no attribute "src" (explain...).
    > > > <iframe id="commentframe" src="comments.html">
    > > >
    > > > 3. Line 33, column 46: element "iframe" undefined (explain...).
    > > > ...id="commentframe" src="comments.html">

    > >
    > > iframes have names, iirc
    > > name="commentframe"
    > >
    > > don't know if in addition to that class would work for the
    > > use of css?
    > >

    >
    > Sure it would. "Class" property has nothing to do with the id or name of
    > the tag
    >
    > Mitja
    >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Els
    > >
    > > Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    > > - Renato Russo -
    > >

    >
    >
    >


    and my reply is:
    The only problem was the iframe is not valid in strict xhtml. I changed
    it to transitional. I don't know of a replacement for iframe in strict
    xhtml.

    BTW: Id replaces Name in xhtml.

    --
    Dennis M. Marks
    http://www.dcs-chico.com/~denmarks/
    Replace domain.invalid with dcsi.net


    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Dennis M. Marks, Feb 24, 2004
    #5
  6. Dennis M. Marks

    Kris Guest

    In article <240220040659394583%>,
    "Dennis M. Marks" <> wrote:

    > I don't know of a replacement for iframe in strict
    > xhtml.


    Use CSS to make it look like a frame. The feature of embedding one
    document into the other, client side, as was done by frames is lost.
    Instead, you can opt to include things through server side scripting.

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Feb 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Dennis M. Marks

    Els Guest

    Dennis M. Marks wrote:

    >>>iframes have names, iirc
    >>>name="commentframe"

    >
    > BTW: Id replaces Name in xhtml.


    Didn't know that, thanks for the correction. :)


    --
    Els

    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
     
    Els, Feb 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Toby A Inkster, Feb 24, 2004
    #8
  9. Toby A Inkster <> wrote:

    > Dennis M. Marks wrote:
    >
    >> I don't know of a replacement for iframe in strict xhtml.

    >
    > Anything wrong with <object/>?


    Is that a trick question?

    Virtually everything is wrong with <object>, but most importantly,
    implementations range from poor to horrendous. You cannot even safely
    embed an image or a plain text file using <object>.

    But if http://www.dcs-chico.com/~denmarks/ is the page in question, as
    I suspect, I really wonder why XHTML 1.0 Strict compliance vs.
    XHTML 1.0 Transitional compliance would matter, when the page says
    "This site requires javascript and will not work without it. Sorry."
    Why would formal compliance to this or that specification matter after
    that?

    For including an HTML document into another, several methods exist.
    Using <iframe> with a link as the fallback content is safe. But most
    servers support some kind of server-side inclusion. There used to be
    a FAQ that discusses such issues...

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 24, 2004
    #9
  10. I have read the following message from Toby A Inkster
    <>
    and have decided to lend my vast knowledge.

    The writer said:
    > Dennis M. Marks wrote:
    >
    > > I don't know of a replacement for iframe in strict xhtml.

    >
    > Anything wrong with <object/>?
    >
    > --
    > Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    > Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
    >
    >


    and my reply is:
    Do you know how I could use it. My experiments did not succeed.

    BTW. On your web page the left column overlaps the main page by 1/4
    inch on Netscape 7.02 on a Mac.

    --
    Dennis M. Marks
    http://www.dcs-chico.com/~denmarks/
    Replace domain.invalid with dcsi.net


    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Dennis M. Marks, Feb 24, 2004
    #10
  11. Dennis M. Marks

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Mark Parnell, Feb 25, 2004
    #11
  12. I have read the following message from Toby A Inkster
    <>
    and have decided to lend my vast knowledge.

    The writer said:
    > Dennis M. Marks wrote:
    >
    > > I don't know of a replacement for iframe in strict xhtml.

    >
    > Anything wrong with <object/>?
    >
    > --
    > Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    > Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
    >
    >


    and my reply is:
    I finally got the following to work as a replacement for iFrame:

    <object id="commentframe" data="comments.html" type="text/html">Object
    is not supported by your browser</object>

    I define the size and border as a style. My page is now strict xhtml. I
    know it won't work on old browsers or browsers with no javascript but I
    do it as a challenge for myself.

    --
    Dennis M. Marks
    http://www.dcs-chico.com/~denmarks/
    Replace domain.invalid with dcsi.net


    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Dennis M. Marks, Feb 25, 2004
    #12
  13. "Dennis M. Marks" <> wrote:

    > I finally got the following to work as a replacement for iFrame:
    >
    > <object id="commentframe" data="comments.html"
    > type="text/html">Object is not supported by your browser</object>


    Really? Meanwhile here on Earth, IE 6 still doesn't support that.
    It won't even render your (clueless*)) alternate content.

    *) It's clueless because there's very obvious useful content you could
    put there, if you just think about it.

    > My page is now strict xhtml.


    As the next exercise in futility, you could move to XHTML 1.1.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 25, 2004
    #13
  14. Dennis M. Marks

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    >> <object id="commentframe" data="comments.html"
    >> type="text/html">Object is not supported by your browser</object>

    >
    >Really? Meanwhile here on Earth, IE 6 still doesn't support that.


    Define "doesn't support".

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Feb 25, 2004
    #14
  15. Spartanicus <> wrote:

    >>> <object id="commentframe" data="comments.html"
    >>> type="text/html">Object is not supported by your browser</object>

    >>
    >>Really? Meanwhile here on Earth, IE 6 still doesn't support that.

    >
    > Define "doesn't support".


    It neither renders the object specified for embedding
    nor presents the content of the object element.
    Didn't you test it?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
    Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 26, 2004
    #15
  16. Dennis M. Marks

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:13:46 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
    <> declared in alt.html:

    > It neither renders the object specified for embedding
    > nor presents the content of the object element.


    Does here.

    > Didn't you test it?


    Didn't you?

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Feb 26, 2004
    #16
  17. I have read the following message from Spartanicus <>
    and have decided to lend my vast knowledge.

    The writer said:
    > "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    > >> <object id="commentframe" data="comments.html"
    > >> type="text/html">Object is not supported by your browser</object>

    > >
    > >Really? Meanwhile here on Earth, IE 6 still doesn't support that.

    >
    > Define "doesn't support".
    >
    > --
    > Spartanicus
    >


    and my reply is:
    Strange. It works in IE 5.1 on a Mac. Try my home page.

    --
    Dennis M. Marks
    http://www.dcs-chico.com/~denmarks/
    Replace domain.invalid with dcsi.net


    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Dennis M. Marks, Feb 26, 2004
    #17
  18. Dennis M. Marks

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    >>>> <object id="commentframe" data="comments.html"
    >>>> type="text/html">Object is not supported by your browser</object>
    >>>
    >>>Really? Meanwhile here on Earth, IE 6 still doesn't support that.

    >>
    >> Define "doesn't support".

    >
    >It neither renders the object specified for embedding


    Does here (IE 5.5).

    >nor presents the content of the object element.


    Correct, but that doesn't amount to a blanket "doesn't work"

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Feb 26, 2004
    #18
  19. Dennis M. Marks

    Spartanicus Guest

    "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    >> <object id="commentframe" data="comments.html"
    >> type="text/html">Object is not supported by your browser</object>

    >
    >Really? Meanwhile here on Earth, IE 6 still doesn't support that.
    >It won't even render your (clueless*)) alternate content.
    >
    >*) It's clueless because there's very obvious useful content you could
    >put there, if you just think about it.


    This statement about "clueless" content also needs re-evaluating. I
    would distinguish 3 levels of usage:

    1) To embed content that UAs don't handle natively.
    2) To embed content that UAs do commonly handle.
    3) To embed text/html content.

    For instances of (1) usage of the object method may be unwise, due to
    the current buggy implementation of <object> in UAs alternative content
    is likely not to be presented to the user. It's essential that it does
    since the chance of a embedding failure is quite high.

    The chance of an embedding failure with type (2) usage is less likely as
    the type of object that is to be embedded is natively supported by the
    UA. When for example embedding an image there's still the risk of for
    example image display being switched off in the UA, requiring the
    element's content to be displayed, which again due to the buggy
    implementation in UAs may not happen.

    However if as the OP did you are embedding text/html (type 3), then
    there's *in principle* no point in specifying alternate content. It may
    however still be useful to do that, due to UAs buggy implementation of
    <object> a situation could occur where the embedding fails despite the
    fact that the text/html content type is inherently supported by the UA,
    or perhaps a UA does not support <object>, in such a case alt content
    would be useful.

    --
    Spartanicus
     
    Spartanicus, Feb 26, 2004
    #19
  20. Dennis M. Marks

    Steve Pugh Guest

    Spartanicus <> wrote:
    >"Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    >>> <object id="commentframe" data="comments.html"
    >>> type="text/html">Object is not supported by your browser</object>

    >>
    >>Really? Meanwhile here on Earth, IE 6 still doesn't support that.


    Unless there's CSS that sets a height and width for #commentframe. Of
    course relying on having CSS styles applied in order to make content
    available is a flawed idea so the HTML width and height attributes
    should be used instead/as well.

    >>It won't even render your (clueless*)) alternate content.
    >>
    >>*) It's clueless because there's very obvious useful content you could
    >>put there, if you just think about it.

    >
    >This statement about "clueless" content also needs re-evaluating. I
    >would distinguish 3 levels of usage:


    [snip]

    >However if as the OP did you are embedding text/html (type 3), then
    >there's *in principle* no point in specifying alternate content. It may
    >however still be useful to do that, due to UAs buggy implementation of
    ><object> a situation could occur where the embedding fails despite the
    >fact that the text/html content type is inherently supported by the UA,
    >or perhaps a UA does not support <object>, in such a case alt content
    >would be useful.


    I think Jukka's point was that any clueful content would have included
    a link to comments.html at the very minimum, regardless of the
    situations in which that content might be used. Users have to be able
    to get to comments.html one way or another - unless that fundamental
    is covered, everything else is rather pointless.

    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, Feb 26, 2004
    #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. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,138
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  2. MZ
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    456
    cwdjrxyz
    Apr 26, 2007
  3. nancyflorida
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    359
    nancyflorida
    Nov 12, 2007
  4. nancyflorida
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    nancyflorida
    Nov 12, 2007
  5. * Its my Pleasure *
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
    * Its my Pleasure *
    Feb 20, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page