Won't validate...why not?

[PC]

http://showcase.netins.net/web/awanapmc/
Site won't validate because:

"This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"

"There is no attribute HEIGHT"

"There is no attribute BORDERCOLOR"

Following is the offending line for HEIGHT and BORDERCOLOR. I only used
this way of writing it because Cute FTP autofilled them for me and I liked
the results in the look of the page. If I'm trying to use strict html, what
is the appropriate way to write this?

<table align="left" width="20%" height ="60%" border="1" bordercolor="white"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"

It's also complaining about my character encoding. I just don't understand
what it wants me to use. I've tried several different things I've come
across. W3C's validator doesn't like any of them...

 

[Spartanicus]

http://showcase.netins.net/web/awanapmc/
Site won't validate because:

"This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"

You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
use Strict.

"There is no attribute HEIGHT"

"There is no attribute BORDERCOLOR"

Following is the offending line for HEIGHT and BORDERCOLOR. I only used
this way of writing it because Cute FTP autofilled them for me and I liked
the results in the look of the page. If I'm trying to use strict html, what
is the appropriate way to write this?

<table align="left" width="20%" height ="60%" border="1" bordercolor="white"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"

Use CSS:

html,body{height:100%}
table{height:60%;float:left}

<table width="20%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" border="1">

Note that specifying a height for a table is almost certainly a bad
idea. If this table is used to create a layout then don't, tables are
for marking up tabular content.

It's also complaining about my character encoding.

Because you don't specify one, configure your server to send the correct
character encoding via the appropriate http header, insert a meta

I just don't understand
what it wants me to use. I've tried several different things I've come
across. W3C's validator doesn't like any of them...

The typical standard of web coding on the web is very poor, using code
that "you come across" will likely lower what you write to that same
level.

Learn and use HTML to semantically mark up the content, learn and use
CSS to layout and style the site.

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:

You should not use a Transitional doctype for newly authored material,
use Strict.

Why?

 

[Spartanicus]

Why?

Web pages should be coded to separate content and styling, then it
should be labeled appropriately by using a Strict doctype so that
validation becomes slightly more useful (validating isn't particularly
useful).

 

[Big Bill]

Web pages should be coded to separate content and styling, then it
should be labeled appropriately by using a Strict doctype so that
validation becomes slightly more useful (validating isn't particularly
useful).

It is to search engines. It helps them to know that your site is
about, say, ball-bearings and not, due to poor markup, tables of
unusual dimension.

BB

 

[David Dorward]

While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:

Why?

,----[ http://w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/loosedtd.html ]
| Authors should use the Strict DTD when possible, but may use the
| Transitional DTD when support for presentation attribute and elements is
| required.
`----

This is 2004. Browsers which lack support for style sheets generally also
lack support for presentational attributes and elements also. There is no
need to use Transitional this millenium.

 

[Toby Inkster]

While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:


Why?

Transitional was created to make transition from earlier versions of HTML
(particularly 3.x) easier. As HTML 4.x has been around for nearly seven
years, I think it's safe to say that the transition phase is over.

Also, from the HTML 4.0 spec:
| We recommend that authors write documents that conform to the strict DTD
| rather than the other DTDs defined by this specification.

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

It is to search engines.

Of course, but what's more much important: it also will increase the
size of one's private parts and the bald will find their hair growing
back.

I don't get where all the bad press about the apocalyptical state of IT
economics is coming from; apparently it is still possible to just make
things up while typing, a reliable indicator of a physically healthy and
wealthy environment.

 

[Liz]

In message <[email protected]>

This is 2004. Browsers which lack support for style sheets generally also
lack support for presentational attributes and elements also. There is no
need to use Transitional this millenium.

Hmmmm
I can't speak about 'generally' but I use RiscOS.
We have five browsers that I know about.
None of them support CSS totally: most not at all. One of the latter is the
fastest, therefore, I suspect, the most used on our platform.
All of them support tables used for presentation, which I realise is
deprecated; in fact hereabouts it is a capital offence.

I'm always grateful when a site uses Transitional (they look so awful here
otherwise, even if the information is 'legally' there, and buy from them
(e.g. amazon, Lands End) and I will be using Transitional for my own
authoring for the foreseeable future.

There is no need to use Transitional this millenium.

There is clearly a need for me, and other RiscOS users, to use Transitional.
I'm sure I read somewhere that some huge proportion of websites don't validate.
Surely validating 4.01 Transitional is better than not validating at all?

Please don't make sweeping statements things from your own
perspective/knowledge.

Liz

--

 

[Liz]

In message <[email protected]>


There is clearly a need for me, and other RiscOS users, to use Transitional.

And if someone were selling RiscOS software/hardware, they'd be shooting
themselves in the foot to use CSS.

Please don't make sweeping statements things from your own
perspective/knowledge.

Sorry, that was a bad conflation of two sentences.
It was supposed to read: "Please don't make sweeping statements from your
own limited perspective/knowledge."

Slainte

Liz
--

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Hmmmm I can't speak about 'generally' but I use RiscOS.

Do you consider yourself a significant portion of the browsing public?
What stats show that Risc OS is popular?

We have five browsers that I know about. None of them support CSS
totally: most not at all. One of the latter is the fastest,
therefore, I suspect, the most used on our platform. All of them
support tables used for presentation, which I realise is
deprecated; in fact hereabouts it is a capital offence.

I'm always grateful when a site uses Transitional (they look so
awful here otherwise, even if the information is 'legally' there,
and buy from them (e.g. amazon, Lands End) and I will be using
Transitional for my own authoring for the foreseeable future.

I would suggest you author using an OS where more than an
infinitesimal percentage of users are concerned.

There is clearly a need for me, and other RiscOS users, to use
Transitional. I'm sure I read somewhere that some huge proportion
of websites don't validate. Surely validating 4.01 Transitional is
better than not validating at all?

One can still use a Transitional doctype and place all the
presentation in a css file. What will your Risc browser do then?

Please don't make sweeping statements things from your own
perspective/knowledge.

Your statement isn't from your own perspective? We must cater to Risc
OS's now?

All Risc users in this group: please identify yourself! <g>

 

[Liz]

In message <[email protected]>

Do you consider yourself a significant portion of the browsing public?

That's why I said "I can't speak generally".

What stats show that Risc OS is popular?

You won't see it in stats.
Because so many sites are invalid, especially historically (it's better now)
RiscOS browsers are usually set to fake versions of IE. I leave mine
on the default of IE4.
As well as RiscOS, a UK equivalent of WebTV, Bush Internet TV also uses
Fresco, the fastest RiscOS browser which has no CSS support at all.

One can still use a Transitional doctype and place all the
presentation in a css file. What will your Risc browser do then?

Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course.
Sort-of like it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.

Your statement isn't from your own perspective? We must cater to Risc
OS's now?

I didn't say that.
David said there was 'no need to use Transitional'.
I was just saying that in some circumstances, there *is* that need, and
there's no harm in it.

I wasn't saying that CSS shouldn't be used, even though it's a zillion times
more difficult to learn than HTML.

Risc-OS users are a 'bijou' market: we know which websites to use, and let's
face it, there are very few (about five, I think) Risc-OS users in the US;
we're mostly in the UK, Holland and Germany, with antipodean outposts.

Besides, trying to identify the RiscOS users on this group is silly (<g>
noted).
By definition, we aren't likely to spend much time on a group which trashes
people who dare to write websites which look good on our browsers!

I've posted here before, my sister works for a university.
She *has* to use IE4 at work: her network actually stops her from using
anything else (I couldn't believe this, I tried, and got a threatening
message about losing my, i.e. her, job if I tried to upgrade. She doesn't
know the reason for this, but that's an entire university network.
Again, a UK university, so not much of an issue for US authors (though they
have several thousand US students at any one time) but the 'to Hell with bad
browsers' mentality which thinks that "everyone can and should upgrade their
browsers" is unrealistic.


Slainte

Liz

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

That's why I said "I can't speak generally".


You won't see it in stats. Because so many sites are invalid,

...which has nothing to do with your Risc problem. Most invalid sites,
in my experience, either have no doctype, or a Transitional one placed
there by the wysiwyg software.

especially historically (it's better now) RiscOS browsers are
usually set to fake versions of IE. I leave mine on the default of
IE4. As well as RiscOS, a UK equivalent of WebTV, Bush Internet TV
also uses Fresco, the fastest RiscOS browser which has no CSS
support at all.


Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course. Sort-of like
it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.

But at least you get all the content, right?

I didn't say that. David said there was 'no need to use
Transitional'. I was just saying that in some circumstances, there
*is* that need, and there's no harm in it.

Please explain. What does your browser do with a Strict doctype
document that uses presentational HTML instead of CSS? (It of course
won't validate, but that doesn't appear to be the issue you have.)

I wasn't saying that CSS shouldn't be used, even though it's a
zillion times more difficult to learn than HTML.

Zillion? No ... Two? Maybe ... When I first discovered CSS a number
of years ago, it took about two days to get the hang of it. Quite
simple, actually. The benefits of using CSS are outstanding.

Risc-OS users are a 'bijou' market: we know which websites to use,
and let's face it, there are very few (about five, I think) Risc-OS
users in the US; we're mostly in the UK, Holland and Germany, with
antipodean outposts.

Five users in the US. A few more in the UK, etc. You are arguing for
the rest of us (Windows, Linux, Mac ...) to dump modern authoring for
a few dozen people. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Besides, trying to identify the RiscOS users on this group is silly
(<g> noted). By definition, we aren't likely to spend much time on
a group which trashes people who dare to write websites which look
good on our browsers!

I've posted here before, my sister works for a university. She
*has* to use IE4 at work: her network actually stops her from using
anything else (I couldn't believe this, I tried, and got a
threatening message about losing my, i.e. her, job if I tried to
upgrade. She doesn't know the reason for this, but that's an entire
university network. Again, a UK university, so not much of an issue
for US authors (though they have several thousand US students at
any one time) but the 'to Hell with bad browsers' mentality which
thinks that "everyone can and should upgrade their browsers" is
unrealistic.

Perhaps one day, Risc OS will catch up. ;-)

 

[Lauri Raittila]

Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course.
Sort-of like it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.

No, exactly oppposite. If website has done well enough. Problem is those
clueless websites using HTML+CSS wrong way. Unfortunately, many big sites
only use CSS incorrectly.

David said there was 'no need to use Transitional'.
I was just saying that in some circumstances, there *is* that need, and
there's no harm in it.

There is harm in it. I constantly have problems with transitional and
other poor HTML.

I wasn't saying that CSS shouldn't be used, even though it's a zillion times
more difficult to learn than HTML.

No it is not. HTML was just as hard on stone age when you had to think
about weather something works with this and that browser or not.

In fact CSS for layout is much easier than HTML. I have seen many CSS
based sites I couldn't think how to make them much better. I haven't seen
many HTML (table) layouted page which I could not make better (using
table layout).

Risc-OS users are a 'bijou' market: we know which websites to use, and let's
face it, there are very few (about five, I think)

That is very, very low percentage.

Risc-OS users in the US;
we're mostly in the UK, Holland and Germany, with antipodean outposts.

I wonder why you only use RiscOS? After all, you can get PC that runs
Opera just fine for few euros, and one that runs FF for maybe 20euros?

I've posted here before, my sister works for a university.
She *has* to use IE4 at work: her network actually stops her from using
anything else (I couldn't believe this, I tried, and got a threatening
message about losing my, i.e. her, job if I tried to upgrade.

I think there is universities and universities. In my university, it is
now suggested that nobody should use IE...

But, strict HTML with some hiding trick would look quite good on IE4.
(last time I used IE4 was 2 weeks ago, when I updated it to FF for my
godparents)

She doesn't
know the reason for this, but that's an entire university network.
Again, a UK university, so not much of an issue for US authors (though they
have several thousand US students at any one time) but the 'to Hell with bad
browsers' mentality which thinks that "everyone can and should upgrade their
browsers" is unrealistic.

It seems that there great differences in university systems. I was
disappointed when I was on seminar in another Finnish university, as it
didn't have wireless network to me access using my laptop... (In another
Finnish university, they do/consider to lend (free of charge) laptops to
people to use while they study)

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Spartanicus scribbled in the mud:

Web pages should be coded to separate content and styling, then it
should be labeled appropriately by using a Strict doctype so that
validation becomes slightly more useful (validating isn't particularly
useful).

FrontPage is a lot less trouble so why mess around with all the dumb code and
css junk.

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Eric B. Bednarz scribbled in the mud:

apparently it is still possible to just make
things up while typing, a reliable indicator of a physically healthy and
wealthy environment.

You're a politician are'nt you?

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Liz scribbled in the mud:

I can't speak about 'generally' but I use RiscOS.

What is RiscOS.

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribbled in the mud:

When I first discovered CSS a number
of years ago, it took about two days to get the hang of it.

I see now that I should be worshiping at your feet instead of that imposter
brucie.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Show the pix and text 'all over the place', of course.
Sort-of like it does in Opera when you switch CSS off.

A well-designed site using CSS for the presentational aspects will still
look fine when CSS is not present. Not the *same* of course, but fine. The
same is an unrealistic goal anyway -- no site will always look the same
when you take into account the myriad of different environments in which
it will be rendered. So "fine" is a worthy goal.

I've posted here before, my sister works for a university.
She *has* to use IE4 at work:

FWIW, my CSS layout works just fine in IE4. And Opera 3.62.

 

[Liz]

In message <[email protected]>

..which has nothing to do with your Risc problem. Most invalid sites,
in my experience, either have no doctype, or a Transitional one placed
there by the wysiwyg software.

Actually, I wasn't strictly correct.
Lots of sites don't validate but seem to read perfectly well in Fresco.
As you suggest, the problem is generally with older sites written in Front
Page.
Nowadays, the problem is sites written totally in Flash.
You're obviously not advocating doing that.
Even though at least one college round here is actually teaching future 'web
designers' to do just that :-(((
Another problem is some commercial sites which use Java (not JS) to complete
orders. We have no support at all for Java because of the cost of porting it
to our platform.

But at least you get all the content, right?

I already said that.

Please explain. What does your browser do with a Strict doctype
document that uses presentational HTML instead of CSS? (It of course
won't validate, but that doesn't appear to be the issue you have.)

The same as it would with a Transitional with CSS, I'd imagine.
I don't actually know.
I've just started using some CSS, but with tables for presentation, and
validating transitional.

Zillion? No ... Two? Maybe ... When I first discovered CSS a number
of years ago, it took about two days to get the hang of it. Quite
simple, actually. The benefits of using CSS are outstanding.

So everyone keeps saying.
But what are the benefits again?
Easier to change - not so for us.
There is a great little RiscOS prog called WebChange, where you can easily
make global changes to a whole site in a very short time.

Smaller code in the HTML page?
I haven't found this to be so, usually between 100 and 250 bytes more for
the markup per page, but as I said, I'm still using tables.

Compatible with more devices?
Maybe so, I couldn't possibly say.
But since I have two sites, one for an artist and one for a photographer, I
wouldn't even expect my own mother to visit them with a mobile phone or
speech parser.
My site looks essentially similar in the four RiscOS browsers I have, IE5,
5.5, 6, Opera, Natscape6, Safari and some other Mac browser I checked out at
the Science Centre.
I have a much bigger problem with resolution: I'm designing here on 800x600
(flexible tables, of course). I don't like the way it 'spreads out' on my
hi-res pc monitor, but it's the same for every other site I've visited which
doesn't use fixed-width tables, so I just have to live with it.

Five users in the US. A few more in the UK, etc. You are arguing for
the rest of us (Windows, Linux, Mac ...) to dump modern authoring for
a few dozen people. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

A few thousand UK users at least, I don't know about 'abroad'.
I have *never* argued for you or anyone else to dump modern authoring.
I just didn't accept the sweeping statement "There is no need to use
Transitional this Millenium - and have demonstrated where there is a case.
Another one is my little subsection where I have tutorials for a piece of
RiscOS software, which only RO users will be interested in.

There seems to have been some problem with amazon.co.uk over the past week
or two, which hasn't been accepting some RO users, alternatively not
recognising them as existing customers, hasn't been letting them complete
their orders, emptying their baskets, deleting their wishlists etc. The
problems are inconsistent, but over at least 3 RO browsers. (I don't
understand it: I received goods today, ordered with Fresco last Sunday with
no problems, and this morning my pending items were still in my basket. I
suspect they're trying out something new on one/some but not all of their
servers.) But already, the mailing lists are full of suggestions of where
else to get the same things with RO browsers. Now I know I've spent about 2k
ukp on amazon this year. Multiply this by even 200, and it could be
significant (maybe not to amazon, though). And strangely, it's difficult to
find out how to report these problems to amazon.co.uk: their visible support
is only for 'return of goods'.

Perhaps one day, Risc OS will catch up. ;-)

Perhaps, I'm not holding my breath.
The recent pd browser is under active development (in fits and starts: I
think the authors are students and I suspect they'll never be able to catch
up and keep up) but that won't help those on my sister's university network.

Slainte

Liz