Have two problems with the following.
Firstly, the W3C validator website no longer recognizes previously
recognized DOCTYPE lines.
What is needed now?
Secondly,how can one fix the FRAMESET complaint (CSE validator)?
Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
> Robert Baer schreef:
>
>> Have two problems with the following.
>
>
>
> I have one problem with the following: it's not online.
> So I had to copy/paste it to a local file and turn the validator on.
> And guess what:
>
>> Firstly, the W3C validator website no longer recognizes previously
>> recognized DOCTYPE lines.
>
>
>
> When I tried it, it *was* recognized. At least enough so the validator
> could tell me it wasn't valid.
** Your experience differs from mine.
W3C eXplicitly stated that a doctype declaration was not present.
And about a year ago, it did not complain regarding the declaration.
> And why wasn't it valid? Because you used a transitional doctype for a
> html file with a frameset.
> Didn't you know that there is a special frameset doctype?
> You'll find it here:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
** No, i had no idea such "subterfuge" existed or was necessary.
To add to confusion, one source eXplicitlystates that the statement
is case sensitive, and that "HTML" must be in lower case.
Your reference displays upper case.
>
>
>> What is needed now?
>
>
> The right doctype, ofcourse.
>
>
>> Secondly,how can one fix the FRAMESET complaint (CSE validator)?
>
>
>
> Oh my, I hope this is not going to start one of those CSE-discussions
> again.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Robert Baer wrote:
> Have two problems with the following.
> Firstly, the W3C validator website no longer recognizes previously
> recognized DOCTYPE lines.
> What is needed now?
Full, correct doctypes?
> Secondly,how can one fix the FRAMESET complaint (CSE validator)?
>
>
>
This is not the FRAMESET doctype. It is a fragment of Transitional.
See: http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
For Strict, Transitional, and Frameset:
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
>
>
Robert Baer schreef:
> Have two problems with the following.
I have one problem with the following: it's not online.
So I had to copy/paste it to a local file and turn the validator on.
And guess what:
> Firstly, the W3C validator website no longer recognizes previously
> recognized DOCTYPE lines.
When I tried it, it *was* recognized. At least enough so the validator
could tell me it wasn't valid.
And why wasn't it valid? Because you used a transitional doctype for a
html file with a frameset.
Didn't you know that there is a special frameset doctype?
You'll find it here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
> What is needed now?
The right doctype, ofcourse.
> Secondly,how can one fix the FRAMESET complaint (CSE validator)?
Oh my, I hope this is not going to start one of those CSE-discussions again.
>
>
>
>
>
Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
> Anyway, the frameset-complaint is probably because you put the
> frameset in the
Robert Baer schreef:
> Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
>
>> When I tried it, it *was* recognized. At least enough so the validator
>> could tell me it wasn't valid.
> ** Your experience differs from mine.
> W3C eXplicitly stated that a doctype declaration was not present.
> And about a year ago, it did not complain regarding the declaration.
>
That's one of the reasons we don't like to copy/paste.
If you lead us to an online website there is a remarkably greater chance
that we see the same warnings and errors.
>> Didn't you know that there is a special frameset doctype?
>> You'll find it here:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
> ** No, i had no idea such "subterfuge" existed or was necessary.
A frameset doctype for a frames-page qualifies as subterfuge????
> To add to confusion, one source eXplicitlystates that the statement is
> case sensitive, and that "HTML" must be in lower case.
> Your reference displays upper case.
>
Is that capital X above intended or accidental?
Because the lower case requirement is true for XHTML. Funny huh?
[snipped]
> So people tell me; all i know is that a few sites i visit use
> framesets, that they work.
That is not impossible, but there are a lot of pitfalls.
Please google for "Frames are evil".
> Not knowing sh*t from shinola, i borrowed code from one of those sites
> and discovered these complaints.
> If there is a better way, i would need a working example to crib from.
I would respectfully suggest that you learn html instead of borrowing
code. It would make you less dependent on the quality of the borrowed
code (or, of course, the absence of quality).
--
Rob Waaijenberg
Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
> Robert Baer schreef:
>
>> Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
>>
>>> When I tried it, it *was* recognized. At least enough so the
>>> validator could tell me it wasn't valid.
>
>
>> ** Your experience differs from mine.
>> W3C eXplicitly stated that a doctype declaration was not present.
>> And about a year ago, it did not complain regarding the declaration.
>>
>
> That's one of the reasons we don't like to copy/paste.
> If you lead us to an online website there is a remarkably greater chance
> that we see the same warnings and errors.
* NOW, the W3C site does *not* complain about no declaration, and i made
no changes.
>
>>> Didn't you know that there is a special frameset doctype?
>>> You'll find it here:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
>>
>> ** No, i had no idea such "subterfuge" existed or was necessary.
>
>
> A frameset doctype for a frames-page qualifies as subterfuge????
>
>
>> To add to confusion, one source eXplicitlystates that the statement
>> is case sensitive, and that "HTML" must be in lower case.
>> Your reference displays upper case.
>>
>
> Is that capital X above intended or accidental?
* Was intentional, used as a means to make greater emphasis to the
statement.
In my case, XTML is undesirable.
> Because the lower case requirement is true for XHTML. Funny huh?
>
> [snipped]
>
>
>> So people tell me; all i know is that a few sites i visit use
>> framesets, that they work.
>
>
> That is not impossible, but there are a lot of pitfalls.
> Please google for "Frames are evil".
* Read some of that; need example of an easy way to do same thing
without frames.
>
>
>> Not knowing sh*t from shinola, i borrowed code from one of those
>> sites and discovered these complaints.
>> If there is a better way, i would need a working example to crib from.
>
>
> I would respectfully suggest that you learn html instead of borrowing
> code. It would make you less dependent on the quality of the borrowed
> code (or, of course, the absence of quality).
>
>
I have too many other things that needs to be done; setting aside
300+ hours for learning HTML code is not an option.
"Robert Baer"
news:13hgthog4kk9ofc@corp.supernews.com...
> Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
>
>> Robert Baer schreef:
>>
>>> Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> When I tried it, it *was* recognized. At least enough so the validator
>>>> could tell me it wasn't valid.
>>
>>
>>> ** Your experience differs from mine.
>>> W3C eXplicitly stated that a doctype declaration was not present.
>>> And about a year ago, it did not complain regarding the declaration.
>>>
>>
>> That's one of the reasons we don't like to copy/paste.
>> If you lead us to an online website there is a remarkably greater chance
>> that we see the same warnings and errors.
> * NOW, the W3C site does *not* complain about no declaration, and i made
> no changes.
>
>>
>>>> Didn't you know that there is a special frameset doctype?
>>>> You'll find it here:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
>>>
>>> ** No, i had no idea such "subterfuge" existed or was necessary.
>>
>>
>> A frameset doctype for a frames-page qualifies as subterfuge????
>>
>>
>>> To add to confusion, one source eXplicitlystates that the statement is
>>> case sensitive, and that "HTML" must be in lower case.
>>> Your reference displays upper case.
>>>
>>
>> Is that capital X above intended or accidental?
> * Was intentional, used as a means to make greater emphasis to the
> statement.
> In my case, XTML is undesirable.
>
>> Because the lower case requirement is true for XHTML. Funny huh?
>>
>> [snipped]
>>
>>
>>> So people tell me; all i know is that a few sites i visit use
>>> framesets, that they work.
>>
>>
>> That is not impossible, but there are a lot of pitfalls.
>> Please google for "Frames are evil".
> * Read some of that; need example of an easy way to do same thing without
> frames.
>
>>
>>
>>> Not knowing sh*t from shinola, i borrowed code from one of those sites
>>> and discovered these complaints.
>>> If there is a better way, i would need a working example to crib from.
>>
>>
>> I would respectfully suggest that you learn html instead of borrowing
>> code. It would make you less dependent on the quality of the borrowed
>> code (or, of course, the absence of quality).
>>
>>
> I have too many other things that needs to be done; setting aside 300+
> hours for learning HTML code is not an option.
And I, for one, dont have more than this 15 seconds to help you out with a
last century technology frames page, which I wont as I don't do frames.
--
Richard.
Robert Baer wrote:
>
> 300+ hours for learning HTML code is not an option.
300 hours? I can't imagine where you came up with that number, but
you're way off.
In the amount of time you spend arguing about doctypes and the W3C
validator, you could probably learn enough HTML to fix your own problems.
BTW, since this is a discussion group, not a help desk, it is
unreasonable to expect us to simply spoon-feed you answers without a
little effort on your part.
--
Berg
Robert Baer wrote:
> I have too many other things that needs to be done; setting aside
> 300+ hours for learning HTML code is not an option.
Can't help you if you are that slow a learner, but normally a couple
spent with the tutorials at www.htmldog.com normally will get you what
you need to fix your problems...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
rf wrote:
> "Robert Baer"
> news:13hgthog4kk9ofc@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert Baer schreef:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When I tried it, it *was* recognized. At least enough so the validator
>>>>>could tell me it wasn't valid.
>>>
>>>
>>>>** Your experience differs from mine.
>>>> W3C eXplicitly stated that a doctype declaration was not present.
>>>> And about a year ago, it did not complain regarding the declaration.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's one of the reasons we don't like to copy/paste.
>>>If you lead us to an online website there is a remarkably greater chance
>>>that we see the same warnings and errors.
>>
>>* NOW, the W3C site does *not* complain about no declaration, and i made
>>no changes.
>>
>>
>>>>>Didn't you know that there is a special frameset doctype?
>>>>>You'll find it here:
>>>>>http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
>>>>
>>>>** No, i had no idea such "subterfuge" existed or was necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>A frameset doctype for a frames-page qualifies as subterfuge????
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> To add to confusion, one source eXplicitlystates that the statement is
>>>>case sensitive, and that "HTML" must be in lower case.
>>>> Your reference displays upper case.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Is that capital X above intended or accidental?
>>
>>* Was intentional, used as a means to make greater emphasis to the
>>statement.
>> In my case, XTML is undesirable.
>>
>>
>>>Because the lower case requirement is true for XHTML. Funny huh?
>>>
>>>[snipped]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So people tell me; all i know is that a few sites i visit use
>>>>framesets, that they work.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is not impossible, but there are a lot of pitfalls.
>>>Please google for "Frames are evil".
>>
>>* Read some of that; need example of an easy way to do same thing without
>>frames.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Not knowing sh*t from shinola, i borrowed code from one of those sites
>>>>and discovered these complaints.
>>>> If there is a better way, i would need a working example to crib from.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would respectfully suggest that you learn html instead of borrowing
>>>code. It would make you less dependent on the quality of the borrowed
>>>code (or, of course, the absence of quality).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have too many other things that needs to be done; setting aside 300+
>>hours for learning HTML code is not an option.
>
>
> And I, for one, dont have more than this 15 seconds to help you out with a
> last century technology frames page, which I wont as I don't do frames.
>
Then *how* you do that kind of thing?
Have a sample i could look at / borrow?
Bergamot wrote:
> Robert Baer wrote:
>
>>300+ hours for learning HTML code is not an option.
>
>
> 300 hours? I can't imagine where you came up with that number, but
> you're way off.
>
> In the amount of time you spend arguing about doctypes and the W3C
> validator, you could probably learn enough HTML to fix your own problems.
>
> BTW, since this is a discussion group, not a help desk, it is
> unreasonable to expect us to simply spoon-feed you answers without a
> little effort on your part.
>
Any "schools"?
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Robert Baer wrote:
>
>> I have too many other things that needs to be done; setting aside
>> 300+ hours for learning HTML code is not an option.
>
>
> Can't help you if you are that slow a learner, but normally a couple
> spent with the tutorials at www.htmldog.com normally will get you what
> you need to fix your problems...
>
Looks interesting..how many hours does it take to wade thru all of it?