XHTML 1.1 strict validation of <THEAD> and <TFOOT>

[Woolly Mittens]

I tried validating my gallery page using the w3c validator.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/gallery/index.asp

To my surprise it informed me that <tfoot> wasn't valid XHTML 1.1 strict,
while it is in the document definition:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_tablemodule

My <thead> tag apparently was valid, while my <tfoot> wasn't.

I would appreciate it if anyone could clarify the matter.

Greetings,
Maurice van Creij

 

[Steve Pugh]

I tried validating my gallery page using the w3c validator.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/gallery/index.asp

To my surprise it informed me that <tfoot> wasn't valid XHTML 1.1 strict,
while it is in the document definition:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_tablemodule

My <thead> tag apparently was valid, while my <tfoot> wasn't.

tfoot must come _before_ tbody, not after it. This causes problems
with browsers that don't support tfoot properly as they will display
the contents of the footer before the body.

So either have a valid page which may cause problems in older browsers
or an invalid page which may cause problems in browsers that apply the
standards exactly. Not using tfoot at all may be the best compromise.

BTW, there is no XHTML 1.1 strict. XHTML 1.1 exists in only one
version. The restriction on where tfoot can go is in all versions of
(x)html that include tfoot.

Steve

 

[SteW]

I tried validating my gallery page using the w3c validator.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.woollymittens.nl/content/gallery/index.asp

To my surprise it informed me that <tfoot> wasn't valid XHTML 1.1 strict,
while it is in the document definition:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_tablemodule

My <thead> tag apparently was valid, while my <tfoot> wasn't.

I would appreciate it if anyone could clarify the matter.

Greetings,
Maurice van Creij

"TFOOT must appear before TBODY within a TABLE definition so that user
agents can render the foot before receiving all of the (potentially
numerous) rows of data."

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.3

Ste W

 

[brucie]

I tried validating my gallery page using the w3c validator.

i know

Crosspost, don't multipost
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
Why and how to crosspost
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html

 

[Woolly Mittens]

Thanks for the replies everybody.

But I still think it's odd to put the footer before the body.
Wouldn't that mess up the reading order in text-browsers?

 

[Woolly Mittens]

Crosspost, don't multipost

The world would be a better place if you would answer questions, instead of
playing netiquette police with a holier than thou attitude.

 

[brucie]

The world would be a better place if you would answer questions,

how do people know the question hasn't already been answered in another
group and they would just be wasting their time repeating what someone
else has already said?

instead of playing netiquette police

you'll never learn if you're never told

 

[Toby A Inkster]

But I still think it's odd to put the footer before the body.

Yeah, it is odd, but that's how it's done.

Wouldn't that mess up the reading order in text-browsers?

Yep -- but many text browsers don't understand tables anyway.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

The world would be a better place if you would answer questions, instead of
playing netiquette police with a holier than thou attitude.

But if you multipost it means that different people will answer you in
different newsgroups, thereby creating extra work for those people kind
enough to answer your questions. Multiposting is plain inconsiderate.
Crosspost instead.

 

[David Dorward]

But I still think it's odd to put the footer before the body.
Wouldn't that mess up the reading order in text-browsers?

Only if the text browser doesn't understand HTML 4 or newer.

 

[Woolly Mittens]

But if you multipost it means that different people will answer you in
different newsgroups, thereby creating extra work for those people kind
enough to answer your questions. Multiposting is plain inconsiderate.
Crosspost instead.

I'm sure your reason is valid. But if you don't answer my question, you have
no business policing me.

 

[William Tasso]

I'm sure your reason is valid. But if you don't answer my question,
you have no business policing me.

I for one am grateful when a multi-post is identified. It means that the
issue has likely been addressed elsewhere and there is little point in me
expending any effort on it.

Is that clearer?