Which version in LH for?

[Jane Withnolastname]

I have a web page that uses an unordered list (<UL>) and the LH (list
header) tag. I know LH is a valid tag because it is clearly defined by
the W3C here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html
The problem is, when I try to validate the page at W3C, it tells me:
" element "LH" undefined "
My page is 4.01 Transitional, using charset windows-1252.
Any ideas why this won't validate?

[EightNineThree]

"Jane Withnolastname" <Ja************ **********@yaho o.com> wrote in message
news:rf******** *************** *********@4ax.c om...

I have a web page that uses an unordered list (<UL>) and the LH (list
header) tag. I know LH is a valid tag because it is clearly defined by
the W3C here: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/bulletlists.html
The problem is, when I try to validate the page at W3C, it tells me:
" element "LH" undefined "
My page is 4.01 Transitional, using charset windows-1252.
Any ideas why this won't validate?

You're trying to validate for HTML 4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.

--
Karl Core

Charles Sweeney says my sig is fine as it is.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:13:45 -0400, "EightNineThree "
<ei************ @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote:

You're trying to validate for HTML 4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.

Well, see, that's all I wanted to know. I had no idea it was not
carried forward to newer versions, and there was nothing I could find
on the W3C site to tell me that. That's why I asked. Thanks.

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:13:45 -0400, "EightNineThree "
<ei************ @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote:

You're trying to validate for HTML 4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.

Well, see, that's all I wanted to know. I had no idea it was not
carried forward to newer versions, and there was nothing I could find
on the W3C site to tell me that. That's why I asked. Thanks.

Sure there was!

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

or even

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> (for historical use only)

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 06:59:45 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:

The LH element would have served an important purpose, though it was not
well designed and defined - after all, HTML 3.0 was just a sketchy draft.
One might even say that almost all lists should have list headers in some
sense. But they can be of different kinds. For example, the HTML 3.0 draft
example

<UL>
<LH>Table Fruit</LH>
<LI>apples
<LI>oranges
<LI>bananas
</UL>

contains a "list header" that would best be presented as a heading, in
HTML as currently (and traditionally) defined, e.g.

<h3 class="lh">Tabl e Fruit</h3>
<UL>
<LI>apples
<LI>oranges
<LI>bananas
</UL>
I noticed in the source of the page that the above is what they used,
rather than the LH tag, which really baffled me at the time.
Normally we don't want to have a big
vertical gap between a "list header" and the list itself, but the default
top margin for <ul> (in most browsers, and endorsed by sample style sheets
in CSS specifications) tends to create such a gap. Even when a class
attribute is used, it can be difficult to remove that gap, due to CSS
technicalities , but that's a different story.

Yes, it was the vertical gap I was trying to get rid of. I got around
the whole thing by writing the entire list, including the LH tag, in
JavaScript. Yeah, I know that's cheating, and probably won't display
right on some browsers, but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:47:26 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xeviou s.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:13:45 -0400, "EightNineThree "
<ei************ @REMOVEeightnin ethree.com> wrote:

You're trying to validate for HTML 4.01
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/index/elements.html

Yet you cite something that is part of a 3.0 spec that never even went
public.

Well, see, that's all I wanted to know. I had no idea it was not
carried forward to newer versions, and there was nothing I could find
on the W3C site to tell me that. That's why I asked. Thanks.

Sure there was!

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

or even

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> (for historical use only)

There is nothing about LH or list headers in the above pages.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Jane Withnolastname <Ja************ **********@yaho o.com> wrote:

Yes, it was the vertical gap I was trying to get rid of.
So CSS would be the answer, wouldn't it?
I got around
the whole thing by writing the entire list, including the LH tag, in
JavaScript.
That sounds like pointless kludgery of the year. And you mean you use LH
tag?
Yeah, I know that's cheating,
And unsuccessful at that.
and probably won't display
right on some browsers,
YM "is guaranteed to fail on all browsers, except if they happen to
support JavaScript and have that support enabled".
but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)

So you're really not interested in the topic of this group, authoring for
the WWW, are you?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Jane Withnolastname <Ja************ **********@yaho o.com> wrote:

Sure there was!

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

or even

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> (for historical use only)

There is nothing about LH or list headers in the above pages.

That, Lady Jane, is exactly the point.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:49:59 +0000 (UTC), "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tu t.fi> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname <Ja************ **********@yaho o.com> wrote:

Sure there was!

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/>

or even

<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32> (for historical use only)

There is nothing about LH or list headers in the above pages.

That, Lady Jane, is exactly the point.

But the point was lost in that I had this tag and couldn't figure out
why it wasn't there. Hence my initial post to this newsgroup, to find
out why it wasn't there.

[Jane Withnolastname]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 11:06:28 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<sk*****@xeviou s.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

Jane Withnolastname wrote:

Yes, it was the vertical gap I was trying to get rid of. I got around
the whole thing by writing the entire list, including the LH tag, in
JavaScript. Yeah, I know that's cheating, and probably won't display
right on some browsers, but as long as it looks right on IE6 and
Validates, that's all I really care about :)

The Web is much bigger than IE version 6 with Javascript enabled. You do
realize Googlebot, for example, will not see your list?

I don't want Google - or any search engine - even looking at this
particular page. As for your other concern, please see my response to
Jukka....