iframe validation issues

[Saber]

Hey all, I cannot get a page I am working on to validate so I was
wondering if I can get any help here. As the subject says, it is with
the iframe tag. (I am using 4.01 Strict) It's actually the iframe that
google gives you to embed a map on your page. I fixed a couple of
errors by making a css entry for it (like width, height, scrolling,
margin). But, the validator does not like id withing the iframe tag.
It also doesn't like src and it doesn't like a > saying that "element
"IFRAME" undefined".
This is the offending text: (I wrapped it manually so that its not a
PITA to display in this post, but on the page it is not split up.)
<iframe id="mapFrame"
src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;hl=en&amp;geocode=&amp;q=28+Industrial+
Blvd.,+Ste.+B,+Medford,+New+York+11763&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=45.688
268,69.082031&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;z=14&amp;iwloc=cent&amp;ll=40.819461,-72.95557&amp;
output=embed&amp;s=AARTsJp_cI0o6gQRP7AbqCui7aMd0RsIdw"></iframe>

The errors are:
Line 37, Column 26: there is no attribute "ID".
<p><iframe id="mapFrame"
src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;hl

Line 37, Column 41: there is no attribute "SRC".
<p><iframe id="mapFrame"
src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&amp;hl=

Line 37, Column 333: element "IFRAME" undefined.
…s=AARTsJp_cI0o6gQRP7AbqCui7aMd0RsIdw"></iframe><br><small><a
href="http://map

Is there anyway to make this work or do I have to go to Transitional?
TIA

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Hey all, I cannot get a page I am working on to validate so I was
wondering if I can get any help here. As the subject says, it is with
the iframe tag. (I am using 4.01 Strict) ...

You would need a frameset doctype ... (that was easy!)

However, I'd stick with 4.01 Strict and ignore the error for google's
iframe. None of your visitors will care.

Certainly, do not switch to Transitional.

 

[Nik Coughlin]

Hey all, I cannot get a page I am working on to validate so I was
wondering if I can get any help here. As the subject says, it is with the
iframe tag. (I am using 4.01 Strict) It's actually the iframe that google
gives you to embed a map on your page.

There's also a way to do it with JavaScript that doesn't need an iframe. As
Google Maps relies on JavaScript anyway that shouldn't be an issue.

I think this is the right link:
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/

I remember it being very easy to set up

 

[richard]

Hey all, I cannot get a page I am working on to validate so I was
wondering if I can get any help here. As the subject says, it is with
the iframe tag. (I am using 4.01 Strict) It's actually the iframe that
google gives you to embed a map on your page. I fixed a couple of
errors by making a css entry for it (like width, height, scrolling,
margin). But, the validator does not like id withing the iframe tag.
It also doesn't like src and it doesn't like a > saying that "element
"IFRAME" undefined".

iframes are not valid in strict, only tranisitional.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

iframes are not valid in strict, only tranisitional.

Or Frameset, right?

 

[dorayme]

Not necessarily.

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/frames/saber.html>

Sorry, I read that as "On Frameset". My bad.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Hey all, I cannot get a page I am working on to validate so I was
wondering if I can get any help here.  As the subject says, it is with
the iframe tag.  (I am using 4.01 Strict) It's actually the iframe that
google gives you to embed a map on your page.  I fixed a couple of
errors by making a css entry for it (like width, height, scrolling,
margin).  But, the validator does not like id withing the iframe tag.
It also doesn't like src and it doesn't like a > saying that "element
"IFRAME" undefined".
This is the offending text: (I wrapped it manually so that its not a
PITA to display in this post, but on the page it is not split up.)
<iframe id="mapFrame"
src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=28+Indus....
Blvd.,+Ste.+B,+Medford,+New+York+11763&amp;sll=37.0625,-95.677068&amp;sspn=45.688
268,69.082031&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;z=14&amp;iwloc=cent&amp;ll=40.819461,-72.95557&amp;
output=embed&amp;s=AARTsJp_cI0o6gQRP7AbqCui7aMd0RsIdw"></iframe>

The errors are:
Line 37, Column 26: there is no attribute "ID".
             <p><iframe id="mapFrame"
src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl

Line 37, Column 41: there is no attribute "SRC".
        <p><iframe id="mapFrame"
src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=

Line 37, Column 333: element "IFRAME" undefined.
…s=AARTsJp_cI0o6gQRP7AbqCui7aMd0RsIdw"></iframe><br><small><a
href="http://map

Is there anyway to make this work or do I have to go to Transitional?

It will work in most current browsers despite the fact that it is not
proper html and thus will not validate. Apparently most current
browsers are designed to work with many versions of html, and often
code that is not w3c supported in the newer versions of html is let
through by the loose-as-a-goose html parser. Xhtml, when served
properly as application/xhtml+xml, is parsed as xml and is extremely
strict. Even a slight error that would get by when parsed as html
often results in the pager not being displayed at all, and instead you
get an error message.

Frames and iFrames are just methods to embed a page in another page.
Embed has never been part of w3c html, but rather is a gift of
Netscape, soon supported by IE, in the browser war era. With w3c html
4.01, embed is of course not allowed, and instead one is supposed to
use object code to embed a page in another page. Also frames and
iFrames started to be phased out, and both are not allowed in any
strict version of html or xhtml from html 4.01 on. The support, or
not, of frames and iFrames is slightly different for non strict
versions of html and xhtml. When you reach xhtml 1.1, which comes in
only one version, very strict, frames and iFrames are not allowed at
all.

This subject comes up in this group fairly often. I will copy a
portion of my answer in an earlier thread on this subject below.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, frame sets are supposed to be replaced with object code in html
4.01 strict, xhtml 1.0 strict and xhtml 1.1 which is of only one kind
and very strict. The problem is that use of an object code in these
cases works on most modern browsers, but not on IE browsers. The
w3schools site long has had an example of a html page embedded in
another html page, but it will not work on IE browsers. However this
can be avoided. There is an ActiveX object that can be used to embed a
html page in another html page. It has been around quite a while and
the clsid for it has been in the Windows OS registry for a long time.
However, for some unknown reason, few seem to use it. One can direct
to the ordinary object needed by most browsers or the ActiveX one
needed by IE by using Microsoft conditional comments.

I have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/video4/embedpage.php to
illustrate this. It validates as xhtml 1.1 and is served properly as
mime type application/xhtml+xml which calls in the very strict xml
parser rather than the loose html parser you get when a xhtml page is
wrongly served as text/html. You can in fact embed yet another page
in an embedded page. Some of the embedded media are designed for high
broadband, but other will work on low broadband or even dial up for
some of the audio. Since much of the code is in php on the server,
some of the details will not be apparent from the source code you can
view. However you can see the ActiveX object with the 32 digit clsid
for it, the ordinary object, and the way Microsoft conditional
comments are used.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

The page given above is just a demo to show that use of correct object
code for embedding pages within other pages is quite possible, even
for the very severe conditions of xhtml 1.1 and use of complicated
media code that often is full of errors, even in code written at the
html 4.01 transitional level. Also note that my example page uses
header exchange and php on the server to serve the page as html 4.01
for IE and other browsers that do not support properly served xhtml,
although most modern browsers other than IE will support xhtml served
properly.Thus if you view the page using IE, you will find that it is
coded as html 4.01strict rather than xhtml 1.1.

 

[richard]

Or Frameset, right?

To my understanding, iframe is totally independent of a framset.
I suppose if one really wanted to totally screw it up, then one could
embed an iframe within a page that is part of a framset.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

To my understanding, iframe is totally independent of a framset. I
suppose if one really wanted to totally screw it up, then one could
embed an iframe within a page that is part of a framset.

Of course it is independent of a frameset, but it uses the same doctype,
which was my point.

 

[richard]

Of course it is independent of a frameset, but it uses the same doctype,
which was my point.

frameset is allowed in all doctypes. I tried using iframe in 4.01
strict and it just would not happen.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

frameset is allowed in all doctypes.

No they aren't. Framesets are allowed (where validity is concerned) only
in a Frameset doctype. Read the specs.

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">

I tried using iframe in 4.01 strict and it just would not happen.

Of course not, for the reason I just stated.

 

[dorayme]

To my understanding, iframe is totally independent of a framset.
I suppose if one really wanted to totally screw it up, then one could
embed an iframe within a page that is part of a framset.

Logically speaking, you would not be totally screwing things up because
the idea of a frameset/frames proper is different to the idea of a
context/i-frame, they have different purposes. The former is about
partitioning a page whereas the latter is about popping a box (like an
image) inline, the box being a special container that can take another
website page.

As to how all this goes with what doctypes, the history of it vis a vis
validation, my impression is that it is all a bit of a stinking mess.

I agree with you that the purpose of the i-frame can be achieved outside
the context of a frameset setting and doctype, as in

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/frames/iFrameTransitional4.01.html>

But, if its purpose can be realised as above, and if proper frame is for
dividing a page up into frames into which can be loaded other pages, it
follows that the two purposes, for real frames and i-frames are entirely
consistent with each other.

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/frames/framesetWithFrameWithIframe.html>

 

[Neredbojias]

Of course it is independent of a frameset, but it uses the same
doctype, which was my point.

I really don't follow this. Iframe is _not_ valid "in Frameset"
although in can be valid within a framed page if that's what you mean.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I really don't follow this. Iframe is _not_ valid "in Frameset"
although in can be valid within a framed page if that's what you
mean.

I believe what I am saying is, that using an <iframe> element within a
Strict doctype page is not valid, per w3c. Using an <iframe> in a
document that has the Frameset doctype, the <iframe> is not shown as an
error.

 

[Neredbojias]

I believe what I am saying is, that using an <iframe> element within
a Strict doctype page is not valid, per w3c. Using an <iframe> in a
document that has the Frameset doctype, the <iframe> is not shown as
an error.

Okay, but according to the html 4.01 spec, iframe is only valid in
transitional.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/elements.html

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Okay, but according to the html 4.01 spec, iframe is only valid in
transitional.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/elements.html

That page is just an informal summary. It is very useful, but in a dispute
or uncertainty, the formal definitions and normative prose should be
checked.

The DTD column there is partly misleading, since some (actually, most)
elements that have L there should have both L and F. Moreover, the empty
cells should be read "this element appears in all DTDs", which is not
immediately obvious from the page.

The Frameset DTD is just a variant of the Transitional DTD, as you can see
from
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/framesetdtd.html
which really says that the DTDs are identical except for
<!ENTITY % HTML.Frameset "INCLUDE">
which makes some parts of the Transitional DTD enabled in Frameset variant
(only).

In particular, the FRAMESET element may contain the NOFRAMES part (commonly
used to demonstrate the author's cluelessness, such "This page requires
frames"), which in turn contains a BODY element, which may contain anything
that the BODY of a Transitional document may contain. This of course
includes IFRAME.

On the other hand, it would be "somewhat" weird to have IFRAME inside an
element whose content is ignored on any frames-enabled browser. (It is
remotely possible that some odd browser somewhere has a mode where "normal"
frames are disabled but inline frames are enabled. I never saw one... but
actually I think one could easily turn a normal browser into such an oddity,
by using simple CSS that sets frame { display: none; }. But why?)

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Okay, but according to the html 4.01 spec, iframe is only valid in
transitional.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/elements.html

What Jukka said.

Earlier, I had futzed with a page on my local server, adding an iframe
and validating with all the three doctypes. Both a Frameset or a
Transitional doctype showed no error, but Strict did.

I don't have a need to use either frames or iframes.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

On the other hand, it would be "somewhat" weird to have IFRAME inside
an element whose content is ignored on any frames-enabled browser.
(It is remotely possible that some odd browser somewhere has a mode
where "normal" frames are disabled but inline frames are enabled. - -

Actually there is... and it's a not a particularly odd browser: Opera
(version 9.62) has settings, under content settings > style settings,
separately options for enabling ("normal") frames and for enabling inline
frames.

Using IFRAME in a frameset document is of course still rather odd, but it's
valid - and an artificial use case might be constructed.

 

[Saber]

You would need a frameset doctype ... (that was easy!)

However, I'd stick with 4.01 Strict and ignore the error for google's
iframe. None of your visitors will care.

Certainly, do not switch to Transitional.

Well, the frameset doctype makes sense. If I leave it as 4.01 Strict,
that won't effect anyone's viewing the site though, right?
Thanks

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Well, the frameset doctype makes sense.

No, not really. You would only want to use a frameset doctype if you
were actually using (evil) frames.

If I leave it as 4.01 Strict, that won't effect anyone's viewing the
site though, right? Thanks

No, it should not. Just don't put that W3C 'valid' icon on the page.