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
On May 27, 5:42 pm, Knut Krueger
> 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).
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.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
David Dorward schrieb:
> On May 27, 5:42 pm, Knut Krueger
>
>> 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).
>
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
Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
> 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
In article
Knut Krueger
> Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
>
> > 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?
A lot more things will not work, on average, for now if you don't
use 4.01
--
dorayme
"dorayme"
news:doraymeRidThis-8B01D8.07220728052007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article
> Knut Krueger
>
>> Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
>>
>> > 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?
>
> 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
In article
"El Kabong"
> "dorayme"
> news:doraymeRidThis-8B01D8.07220728052007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article
> > Knut Krueger
> >
> >> Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
> >>
> >> > 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?
> >
> > 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?
>
There was a case here a little while back of someone getting
Google maps working on his page(s) and it "needed" it:
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.
--
dorayme
dorayme schrieb: test
> In article
> Knut Krueger
>
>> Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
>>
>> > 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?
>
> 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
is marked as wrong in XHTML but not in HTML4.01?
And what charset is the best voe 4.01 strict?
Regards Knut
In article test test
Knut Krueger
> dorayme schrieb:
> > In article
> > Knut Krueger
> >
> >> Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
> >>
> >> > 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?
> >
> > 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
> is marked as wrong in XHTML but not in HTML4.01?
>
"
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.
--
dorayme
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
test
Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
> 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
test