do not find the validation error

[Knut Krueger]

Hi to all
does anybody sees the error of the validation in line 77?
I am looking since more than an hour for any missing " or something else.

http://www.sunshine-language-learning.de/index.php

Maybe I am looking to the wrong line :-(

Thanks in advance if anybody will find the missing sign

Knut

 

[David Dorward]

does anybody sees the error of the validation in line 77?

Yes, its right there on line 77:
_1" HREF="

I am looking since more than an hour for any missing " or something else.

Why? The error message says ' there is no attribute "HREF" ', and you
can clearly see your attempt to use it anyway. XHTML (why XHTML?) is
case sensitive (as the error message reminds you).

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Knut Krueger:

does anybody sees the error of the validation in line 77?
I am looking since more than an hour for any missing " or something
else.
http://www.sunshine-language-learning.de/index.php

The error is in that line and it is exactly what the validator reports:
there is no attribute HREF (in the Document Type Definition that you have
specified).

You have specified a XHTML 1.0 DTD, in which all attributes are in lower
case and case is significant, i.e. the name must be href and not HREF.

Ceterum censeo: most authors gain nothing but confusion by using XHTML
instead of good old HTML 4.01.

 

[Knut Krueger]

Yes, its right there on line 77:
_1" HREF="


Why? The error message says ' there is no attribute "HREF" ', and you
can clearly see your attempt to use it anyway. XHTML (why XHTML?) is
case sensitive (as the error message reminds you).

Thanks a lot,
I was implementing some php stuff merging two code parts from different
pages and got troubles with the " and '.
So I was searching for about 20 missing " or double ".
This was the only one with another error :-(
Did not read carefully.

Thany you both

Knut

so I found about 20 Error with missing and

 

[Knut Krueger]

Scripsit Knut Krueger:

The error is in that line and it is exactly what the validator reports:

there is no attribute HREF (in the Document Type Definition that you
have specified).

You have specified a XHTML 1.0 DTD, in which all attributes are in lower
case and case is significant, i.e. the name must be href and not HREF.

Yes and now I got my point of misunderstanding.
The validator reports only the first attempt of the error.
I compared to the next one and did not found a difference ...

> Ceterum censeo: most authors gain nothing but confusion by using XHTML
> instead of good old HTML 4.01.
>

Anything what's not working with 4.01?

Knut

 

[dorayme]

Anything what's not working with 4.01?

A lot more things will not work, on average, for now if you don't
use 4.01

 

[El Kabong]

A lot more things will not work, on average, for now if you don't
use 4.01

Out of curiosity, is there _ever_ a good reason to go to the trouble of
using XHTML? Are there some example pages that just wouldn't work if they
weren't done in XHTML?

El

 

[dorayme]

Out of curiosity, is there _ever_ a good reason to go to the trouble of
using XHTML? Are there some example pages that just wouldn't work if they
weren't done in XHTML?

There was a case here a little while back of someone getting
Google maps working on his page(s) and it "needed" it:

<http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.html/browse_frm/thread/7336
b6f87ebd9dcd/fd74092f571d9a7d?lnk=gst&q=google+map&rnum=3&hl=en#fd
74092f571d9a7d>

And I know a bloke who would not have got a job had he not been
able to show his would be employer (probably simply ignorant) a
few pages he had done in it.

 

[Knut Krueger]

A lot more things will not work, on average, for now if you don't
use 4.01

but isn`t the wc3 validation better in XHTML
means <p><b> test </p></b>
is marked as wrong in XHTML but not in HTML4.01?

And what charset is the best voe 4.01 strict?

Regards Knut

 

[dorayme]

but isn`t the wc3 validation better in XHTML
means <p><b> test </p></b>
is marked as wrong in XHTML but not in HTML4.01?

"<p><b> test </p></b>" is wrong under any standard including
4.01. What are you thinking?

And what charset is the best voe 4.01 strict?

This is quite an independent question to which doctype to use.
What is best depends on what you want to do. Read carefully
everything J. Korpela has to say on this question as he knows
things. Discussion on this comes up all the time on this ng.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Knut Krueger:

but isn`t the wc3 validation better in XHTML

No it isn't. And why would you validate against a syntax definition that you
should not use?

Contrary to popular superstition, XHTML DTDs as a whole aren't "stricter"
than HTML 4.01 DTDs. XHTML DTDs disallow end tag omission, and you may call
this "stricter". But since the metalanguage is weaker (XML vs. SGML), the
XHTML DTDs allow many constructs that are forbidden in HTML - both in HTML
4.01 and XHTML, though only HTML 4.01 can make the rule part of the DTD.
(You can write a modified HTML DTD that makes all end tags compulsory if you
like. Or I can do that for you.)

means <p><b> test </p></b>
is marked as wrong in XHTML but not in HTML4.01?

Did you actually test that? No, you didn't.

And what charset is the best voe 4.01 strict?

What has that got to do with anything? The choice of charset does not depend
on the version of HTML but on other considerations. The somewhat sarcastic
but correct answer is: since you had to ask, it's windows-1252. (I'm sure
you had mentioned the human language used, if it's not a Western European
language like English, German, or Spanish.)

(Note to fellow nitpickers: windows-1252 _is_ better, since the odds are
that some day the author's software throws in a character like en dash or
curly quote, in windows-1252 encoding, so using iso-8859-1 would mean wrong
information, even though browsers almost universally take iso-8859-1 as
actually meaning windows-1252.)

 

[Knut Krueger]

Scripsit Knut Krueger:


No it isn't. And why would you validate against a syntax definition that
you should not use?

Contrary to popular superstition, XHTML DTDs as a whole aren't
"stricter" than HTML 4.01 DTDs. XHTML DTDs disallow end tag omission,
and you may call this "stricter". But since the metalanguage is weaker
(XML vs. SGML), the XHTML DTDs allow many constructs that are forbidden
in HTML - both in HTML 4.01 and XHTML, though only HTML 4.01 can make
the rule part of the DTD. (You can write a modified HTML DTD that makes
all end tags compulsory if you like. Or I can do that for you.)


Did you actually test that? No, you didn't.

No I did not, I read it on a page, discussing the differences between
xhtml and html 4.01 -
seem th obe the wrong page :-(

by the way ... I usesd the XHTML the first time - and I belve you and
will go back to the 4.01 definition.

Thank you for your help
Knut