Tag P not allowed

[juraj]

Hello, I am webmaster of www.crimson-imperium.org.
The site was validated with W3C's validator. It passed the test in the
past, but now validator is complaining about not allowed P tags.

I can't find the reason why P tags aren't allowed. I've digged through
all the source code, but, again, I can't find the reason they're not
allowed. Can someone please help me?

Thank you.

- juraj

[Rob_W]

juraj wrote:

Hello, I am webmaster of www.crimson-imperium.org.
The site was validated with W3C's validator. It passed the test in the
past, but now validator is complaining about not allowed P tags.

I can't find the reason why P tags aren't allowed. I've digged through
all the source code, but, again, I can't find the reason they're not
allowed. Can someone please help me?

Thank you.

- juraj

You've got 2 closing p-tags in a row

quote:
good luck to you from all of us in UKEG.</p></p>
unquote

I guess that's the problem the validator is pointing out.

RW

[Lachlan Hunt]

Firstly, it's an element, not a tag.

juraj wrote:

Hello, I am webmaster of www.crimson-imperium.org.
The site was validated with W3C's validator. It passed the test in the
past, but now validator is complaining about not allowed P tags.

The problem is (at least for the first error) that you have not properly
closed the previous <p> element. All following errors have the same
cause, and the first error is on line 104. The previous <p> element
which is opened on line 103 does not get closed until line 112 where you
have two consecutive end-tags: "</p></p>".

Thus, the DOM tree for this markup, when served properly as
application/xhtml+xml, rather than incorrectly as text/html as you are
doing; will actually look like this.

<p>
<p/>
<p/>
...
</p>

Each of the errors given are for the 4 nested <p> elements.
Essentially, the document appears to be well-formed, but you have the
end-tag in the wrong place.

If you had been using HTML4, instead of XHTML, then the </p> end-tag
would have been implied by the presence of the following <p> start-tag.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox

[juraj]

Hello, thanks for your help. I managed to solve this and satisfy the
validator.

Now I've another problem: this.
http://crimson-imperium.org/index.php?pastpolls

As you can see, there's big amount of markup errors, and some
explanations are confusing.

[Jim Moe]

juraj wrote:

Now I've another problem: this.
http://crimson-imperium.org/index.php?pastpolls

As you can see, there's big amount of markup errors, and some
explanations are confusing.

Fix the ones that are not confusing.
Tell us which ones are confusing. (My mindreading skills are not good.)

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[Rob_W]

juraj wrote:

Hello, thanks for your help. I managed to solve this and satisfy the
validator.

Now I've another problem: this.
http://crimson-imperium.org/index.php?pastpolls

As you can see, there's big amount of markup errors, and some
explanations are confusing.

You use an XHTML-doctype.
That means you have to close your tags.

You've got a whole bunch of <br>
that you have to change into <br />

The same applies to <meta> and <li>.

You're either being terribly sloppy
or you don't know what's important when using XHTML.

RW

[juraj]

I do know what's important in XHTML. There weren't any unclosed <br>
tags at all.

My problem are the <ul> tags. They are self closed, but some of them
are empty(they're generated by script). So I need an invisible <ul> tag
child element so validator thinks the tag isn't empty. I've tried
adding a <font color="black"> tag, but it's not allowed within <ul>
tag. Can anyone give me an idea?

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "juraj" <ju****@gmail.com> writing
in news:11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com:

I do know what's important in XHTML. There weren't any unclosed <br>
tags at all.

My problem are the <ul> tags. They are self closed, but some of them
are empty(they're generated by script). So I need an invisible <ul> tag
child element so validator thinks the tag isn't empty. I've tried
adding a <font color="black"> tag, but it's not allowed within <ul>
tag. Can anyone give me an idea?

There might not have been any unclosed <br> elements, but there are
unclosed <br /> elements. <br> is for HTML, <br /> for XHTML.

There is no such thing as an invisible <ul></ul> element, either it's
there, or it isn't.

Using a deprecated element isn't going to do anything except give you
headaches. As I'm sure you are aware:
<ul>
<li>Fruit
<ul>
<li>Apples</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Vegetables
<ul>
<li>Onions</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

Style the li elements as needed. Run your script with one level, make
sure it's right, then you can add levels.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[Andy Dingley]

On 1 May 2005 13:43:14 -0700, "juraj" <ju****@gmail.com> wrote:

My problem are the <ul> tags. They are self closed, but some of them
are empty(they're generated by script). So I need an invisible <ul> tag
child element so validator thinks the tag isn't empty.

From the DTD:
<!ELEMENT ul (li)+>

So this tells us that <ul> must contain _at_least_ one <li>, no fewer.

<ul><li>...</li></ul> is valid, but that <ul></ul> isn't, nor is
<ul>[stuff]</ul> When you have an empty list in HTML/XHTML, you
_must_ remove the containing <ul> element as well as the <li>s

<ul/> would be a particularly bad thing to generate !

You can't avoid this. The DTD will have it no other way. So your script
is generating invalid HTML for the empty-list case. Either fix the
generator, or abandon attempts to have it all validate. If you can't
change the script (these things happen) then don't worry about it - but
you'll have to wave validity goodbye.

In particular, there is no way that stuffing <font>, <br>, &nbsp; or
somesuch in there instead of the <li> can't possibly work.
--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.

[juraj]

Ah, whatever. I'll fill up empty months with something like 'There's no
poll for this month'. No way I'm going to give away validity after so
much work :)

Thank you all on your help.

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode,
<11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
the lovely and talented juraj
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

Hello, thanks for your help. I managed to solve this and satisfy the
validator. Now I've another problem: this.
http://crimson-imperium.org/index.php?pastpolls As you can see, there's big amount of markup errors, and some
explanations are confusing.

You have a number of replies about specific points. You should
look into tidy or another html lint which can identify and in
many cases correct minor mechanical problems (like failing to
close empty tags in xhtml) before you validate. Lints, like
tidy, do not validate, but they do fix the stuff that leads to
many "noise" types of errors. In many cases documents will
validate after tidying, and in those that don't, the validation
errors will be easier to read.

--
Lars Eighner ei*****@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/
War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague