473,320 Members | 2,133 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

HTML to XHTML - Google search form

Converting some pages from HTML transitional to XHTML strict, validating
at W3C. I have read ad naseum about this and am stumped.

Google has a form you can include on your own Web page for searching
either the Web or the resident domain (site that the search form is on)
that I've been using for quite a while, successfully configuring it to
validate at the W3C validator.

The valid transitional code is:
------------------------------
<FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search">
<input type=hidden name=ie value=ISO-8859-1>
<input type=hidden name=oe value=ISO-8859-1>
<TABLE>
<tr><td><a class="highlight2" href="http://www.google.com/">
<IMG SRC="./google_x_03a.gif" border="0" ALT="Google"></a></td>
<td>

<INPUT TYPE=text name=q size=31 maxlength=255 value="">
<INPUT type=submit name=btnG VALUE="Search">
<font size=-1>
<input type=hidden name=domains value="http://yoursite.com">

<input type=radio name=sitesearch value=""> WWW
<input type=radio name=sitesearch
value="http://ed.mullen.home.comcast.net" checked> ALL of yoursite.com

</td></tr></TABLE>
------------------------------

Let's forget the table code; I've stripped it out. I'm not worried about
visual formatting at this point, only validating as XHTML Strict.

I have struggled to figure out how the code needs to be contained in
order to validate as XHTML Strict.

The current validated HTML transitional page is at: http://edmullen.net

Any help gratefully appreciated.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 20 '06 #1
12 4819
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Converting some pages from HTML transitional to XHTML strict,
Why? HTML 4.01 Strict would be more useful.

<snip form> I have struggled to figure out how the code needs to be contained in
order to validate as XHTML Strict.


To validate as Strict (XHTML or HTML), your <input> elements need to be
contained in a block element, e.g. <fieldset>.

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
Jan 20 '06 #2
Mark Parnell wrote:
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Converting some pages from HTML transitional to XHTML strict,
Why? HTML 4.01 Strict would be more useful.


How so?

<snip form>
I have struggled to figure out how the code needs to be contained in
order to validate as XHTML Strict.


To validate as Strict (XHTML or HTML), your <input> elements need to be
contained in a block element, e.g. <fieldset>.


Thanks. I'll look into that.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 20 '06 #3
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
How so?


Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Say NO to XHTML
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
Jan 20 '06 #4
Mark Parnell wrote:
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
How so?


Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Say NO to XHTML
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm


Much appreciated. I will go and read. So, how would you characterize the
many choices in DOCTYPES today? I come at this as someone who is hardly
a novice but not a professional Web developer. Is it really a desirable
goal to make pages that validate through the W3C Validator 100%, or is
it more sensible to strive for that but be practical and use, say, a
combination of running the Validator and then testing pages in multiple
browsers, then settling on "what works"? Meaning, I guess, at what
point should one stop considering the W3C Validator and standards as a
Holy Grail and get practical? Again, I'm coming at this as a user of the
Web, not a professional designer for hire.

Thanks in advance for your input.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 20 '06 #5
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Much appreciated. I will go and read. So, how would you characterize the
many choices in DOCTYPES today?
Well first and foremost, you need to choose a doctype that triggers
"Standards Mode".
http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html

IMNSHO HTML 4.01 Strict is the best choice for new pages.
Is it really a desirable
goal to make pages that validate through the W3C Validator 100%,
Yes it's a desirable goal, but not an end in itself.
or is
it more sensible to strive for that but be practical and use, say, a
combination of running the Validator and then testing pages in multiple
browsers, then settling on "what works"?
Never consider the validator a substitute for testing. Browsers aren't
perfect in their support of the specs. And a page can be technically
valid, but yet not well written. Validation is just one step on the road
to a usable and accessible page.
Meaning, I guess, at what
point should one stop considering the W3C Validator and standards as a
Holy Grail and get practical?


"HTML validation" is a good tool, but just a tool
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
Jan 20 '06 #6
Mark Parnell wrote:
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
How so?


Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful
http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

Say NO to XHTML
http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/no-xhtml.htm


VERY elucidating! Thank you.

Which leaves me with still wanting the comfort of standards. And, also,
realizing that some level of chaos seems to be inherent in all of this.
And that, ultimately, "making it work" is the best goal.

It seems that my left brain and right brain are now happily engaged in
fruitless battle. Perhaps I should take up brain surgery. Seems like it
would be simpler and less risky. ;-)

I think I may simply concentrate on conveyance of information rather
than the minutia of its form, while still being mindful of the
differences in presentation among the two or three major renderers of
the content. Meaning: Here's the page, I tried to make it look nice in
99% of the browsers out there, but it's still about the content, not the
form. Marshall McLuhan notwithstanding.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 20 '06 #7
Mark Parnell wrote:
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Much appreciated. I will go and read. So, how would you characterize the
many choices in DOCTYPES today?


Well first and foremost, you need to choose a doctype that triggers
"Standards Mode".
http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch.html

IMNSHO HTML 4.01 Strict is the best choice for new pages.
Is it really a desirable
goal to make pages that validate through the W3C Validator 100%,


Yes it's a desirable goal, but not an end in itself.
or is
it more sensible to strive for that but be practical and use, say, a
combination of running the Validator and then testing pages in multiple
browsers, then settling on "what works"?


Never consider the validator a substitute for testing. Browsers aren't
perfect in their support of the specs. And a page can be technically
valid, but yet not well written. Validation is just one step on the road
to a usable and accessible page.
Meaning, I guess, at what
point should one stop considering the W3C Validator and standards as a
Holy Grail and get practical?


"HTML validation" is a good tool, but just a tool
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html


Mark, this is the best response to this issue I have ever seen. You
have my thanks for both the way you conveyed it and the useful
references provided.

I will now go get another Jamesons and then I will ponder for the next
several days. ;-)

Thanks much.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 20 '06 #8
Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Ed Mullen
<ed@edmullen.net> spouted in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Meaning: Here's the page, I tried to make it look nice in
99% of the browsers out there, but it's still about the content, not the
form.


Exactly!

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
Jan 20 '06 #9
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Ed Mullen wrote:
<FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search">
<input type=hidden name=ie value=ISO-8859-1>
<input type=hidden name=oe value=ISO-8859-1>


Why ISO-8859-1? Do you want a form for the poor man from
my signature? I suggest UTF-8 instead of ISO-8859-1.
For details, see
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...form-i18n.html

And use "" btw.
<input type="hidden" name="ie" value="UTF-8">

--
Netscape 3.04 does everything I need, and it's utterly reliable.
Why should I switch? Peter T. Daniels in <news:sci.lang>

Jan 20 '06 #10
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Ed Mullen wrote:
<FORM method=GET action="http://www.google.com/search">
<input type=hidden name=ie value=ISO-8859-1>
<input type=hidden name=oe value=ISO-8859-1>
Why ISO-8859-1? Do you want a form for the poor man from
my signature? I suggest UTF-8 instead of ISO-8859-1.
For details, see
http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/...form-i18n.html


It was the way Google generated the form if I recall correctly. Wasn't
something I picked. But your point is good, I'll change that.

And use "" btw.
<input type="hidden" name="ie" value="UTF-8">


Yep, caught that. Thanks.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 20 '06 #11
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Ed Mullen wrote:
Why ISO-8859-1? Do you want a form for the poor man from
my signature? I suggest UTF-8 instead of ISO-8859-1.


It was the way Google generated the form if I recall correctly. Wasn't
something I picked. But your point is good, I'll change that.


I forgot to mention that the page itself should then also have
"charset=UTF-8". How to do this is explained in
http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTTP-charset.html

--
Netscape 3.04 does everything I need, and it's utterly reliable.
Why should I switch? Peter T. Daniels in <news:sci.lang>

Jan 20 '06 #12
Andreas Prilop wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Ed Mullen wrote:
Why ISO-8859-1? Do you want a form for the poor man from
my signature? I suggest UTF-8 instead of ISO-8859-1.

It was the way Google generated the form if I recall correctly. Wasn't
something I picked. But your point is good, I'll change that.


I forgot to mention that the page itself should then also have
"charset=UTF-8". How to do this is explained in
http://www.w3.org/International/O-HTTP-charset.html


Excellent point ... thanks for that! I'm still slogging my way through
191 html files, one-by-one. But I'll get to it.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Jan 21 '06 #13

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

14
by: Ludwig77 | last post by:
I read that there are some tags that can be entered in a web page's meta tags in order to prevent web bot searching and indexing of the web page for search engines. What is the tagging that I...
2
by: Thomas SMETS | last post by:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear, I need to parse XHTML/HTML files in all ways : ~ _ Removing comments and javascripts is a first issue ~ _ Retrieving the list of fields...
32
by: Cornel Bicutzi | last post by:
Hello, What is the difference between HTML and XHTML... Thanks, ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IT Interview Questions :...
1
by: darrel | last post by:
I have two issues: 1) The WYSIWYG content editor we're using for our CMS doesn't truly support xhtml. 2) .net doesn't truly support xhtml my question is if there is a .net...
82
by: Eric Lindsay | last post by:
I have been trying to get a better understanding of simple HTML, but I am finding conflicting information is very common. Not only that, even in what seemed elementary and without any possibility...
9
by: anupamjain | last post by:
Hi, After 2 weeks of search/hit-and-trial I finally thought to revert to the group to find solution to my problem.(something I should have done much earlier) This is the deal : On a JSP...
28
by: Timothy Larson | last post by:
A couple years ago it seemed like XHTML was the direction of most web markup, a foregone conclusion. Now I return to the scene and I see many here recommending that authors stick to HTML, albeit...
12
by: Peter Michaux | last post by:
Hi, I am experimenting with some of the Ruby on Rails JavaScript generators and see something I haven't before. Maybe it is worthwhile? In the page below the script is enclosed in //<!]> ...
2
by: sateeshchandrasanga | last post by:
Hi All, My HTML code is working fine in Firefox.But its not displaying any thing in IE.Can you help me in this problem.And in Google crown its displaying but not properly. ...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
0
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: Defcon1945 | last post by:
I'm trying to learn Python using Pycharm but import shutil doesn't work
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.