W3C

Ok i am now getting very confused. Initally I was under the opinion that
then the BR tag was ment to be
to make it W3C compliant. But when I
use there validator it says it should be
.

So it it correct then that
is actually XML and not HTML?

If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying they are
W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.

So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 071222-0, 22/12/2007
Tested on: 23/12/2007 19:20:28
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Re: W3C

Steve wrote:

> Ok i am now getting very confused. Initally I was under the opinion that
> then the BR tag was ment to be
to make it W3C compliant. But when I
> use there validator it says it should be
.
>
> So it it correct then that
is actually XML and not HTML?
>
> If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying they are
> W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.
>
> So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?

Wrong conclusion.

1.
in XHTML,
in HTML
2. If many drive through red, does that make the traffic light system
rubbish?

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

Re: W3C

On Dec 23, 1:19 pm, Steve wrote:
> Ok i am now getting very confused. Initally I was under the opinion that
> then the BR tag was ment to be
to make it W3C compliant. But when I
> use there validator it says it should be
.
>
> So it it correct then that
is actually XML and not HTML?
>
> If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying they are
> W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.
>
> So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?


The self-closed
is an xhtml tag. It is part of xhtml and not
html. The reason is that xhtml must comply with xml rules which are
very strict. An xhtml page could consist of code that could be written
in html only, code that could be written as xml only or a mix.
Everything in xml must be closed. Thus one must use a self-closed tag
such as
, for everything that is not closed in an
html page. Not closing anything is a very serious error in xml and can
cause a page not to display in an xml device. Most people who write
xhtml pages do not serve them properly as application/xhtml+xml . You
can serve an xhtml page as the usual mime type text/html, but in that
case you are only serving html and all of the special xhtml code has
no use. Usually a page written in valid xhtml with no xml code will
work mis-served as html. If an xhtml page is served properly, the a
browser capable of true xhtml parses it as xml. Even a tiny error,
such as a non-closed tag, can give an error message rather than a view
of the page. No IE browser, including IE7, can display an xhtml page
when served properly as application/xhtml+xml. If you can view a page
that claimes to be xhtml on any IE browser, then it is not xhtml. The
code may well be written as valid xhtml, but it is being served as
html only. You have to resort to some tricks to get IE and other
outdated browsers to view an xhtml page properly - for instance use
some server side code to serve html 4.01 strict when header exchange
reveals the browser can not support true xhtml.

With this background, the W3C validator is quite right in finding an
error for
on a page written as html and finding an error if

is used on an xhtml page.

Re: W3C

Scripsit Steve:

> Ok i am now getting very confused.

We can see that from the Subject line.

> Initally I was under the opinion
> that then the BR tag was ment to be
to make it W3C compliant.

You were confused by reading about XHTML. Just stop that.

> But when I use there validator it says it should be
.

The confused and confusing material you read about apparently didn't
tell you about doctypes.

> So it it correct then that
is actually XML and not HTML?

No, it's both XML and HTML, but in pre-XHTML HTML, its meaning is
completely different and it's not correctly processed by any browser
worth mentioning, so you should not use it there. Confused? Blaim
Cana... I mean XHTML. And you should stop reading about XHTML until you
know that you have a real reason to know about it.

> If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying
> they are W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.

The W3C has partial responsibility, since it advocates the use of "Valid
(X)HTML!" icons, which are worse than useless and often blatant lies.
But if someone lies about markup being valid, he's the one to put the
main blaim on.

> So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?

No, XHTML as usually advertized is worse than rubbish, since it confuses
you.

> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

You seem to have a fake signature virus, possibly masquerading as
antivirus software.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Re: W3C

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:19:47
GMT Steve scribed:

> Ok i am now getting very confused. Initally I was under the opinion
> that then the BR tag was ment to be
to make it W3C compliant.
> But when I use there validator it says it should be
.
>
> So it it correct then that
is actually XML and not HTML?
>
> If this is the case then I found hundreds of site out there saying
> they are W3C comliant (HTML 4.01) when they actually are not.
>
> So basically W3C is a load of rubbish as not may are sticking to it?

I think the previous repliers explained it all pretty darn well, but just
to add my 2 drachmas-worth, don't use xhtml, use html 4.01 strict. Hardly
any web author actually needs to use xhtml and most do so simply because
they're pompous.

Avast, Matey!

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

Re: W3C

In article ,
Bone Ur wrote:

> Hardly
> any web author actually needs to use xhtml and most do so simply because
> they're pompous.

Perhaps some do it for this reason, but most do not. Most do it
because they rightly or wrongly think it is the right and
stricter thing to do, the wave of the future and all that. (I
still keep my one effort in XHTML online as a sort of museum
piece. For me it is part of the wave of a past foray never to be
repeated after I learnt better from folks here).

Btw, boji, I don't like this new name of yours. Please change it
back. You were warmer and cuddlier and more publicly foolish (as
in the Jukka charge against you) and slappable back then.

Merry Xmas to you... Neredbojias!

--
dorayme

Re: W3C

Hi Els,

Sunday December 23 2007, Els writes to Steve:

> From: els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl

> 2. If many drive through red, does that make the traffic
> light system rubbish?

Hahahaha...

Merry Christmas All!

*
| /'\ )))
-*- / 0 \ | ^o^ ((
| /'''o'\ -*- ))
| / O * \ | ((
/"""""""""\/'\_________||__
/'* @ ' 0 \''\''''''''''''\
/"""o""""'''''\ o\____________\
/' @ x 00 o \""\''''''''''''
/''''''''''"""""o"\ \ |#| ### | ^
/' % * @ % * \""\|`| | O
/'''''''''''''''''''''\;;--------- ( )
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ \ \ ( )
| |


Gufus
--
K Klement


.... Why experiment on animals with so many lawyers out there?

Re: W3C

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:20:08
GMT dorayme scribed:

> In article ,
> Bone Ur wrote:
>
>> Hardly
>> any web author actually needs to use xhtml and most do so simply
>> because they're pompous.
>
> Perhaps some do it for this reason, but most do not. Most do it
> because they rightly or wrongly think it is the right and
> stricter thing to do, the wave of the future and all that. (I
> still keep my one effort in XHTML online as a sort of museum
> piece. For me it is part of the wave of a past foray never to be
> repeated after I learnt better from folks here).

Much the same with me though I lost my one xhtml relic in the crash of last
February. As for the dorks who think doing xhtml is right...they're dorks.

> Btw, boji, I don't like this new name of yours. Please change it
> back. You were warmer and cuddlier and more publicly foolish (as
> in the Jukka charge against you) and slappable back then.
>
> Merry Xmas to you... Neredbojias!

Yes, I'll be changing back, probably very soon. Don't wanna become
schizophrenic, ya know. And have a Merry Christmas yourself, Do... er, I
mean dorayme.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.