468,167 Members | 1,924 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,167 developers. It's quick & easy.

Do not understand validation info

Created: http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/bio/ and attempted
XHTML Transitional validation. Came up with 13 errors that do not make
sense. Please do same and tell me what it is asking for, for example,
on line 29, column 25: <hr width="50" noshade />.

Is it telling me to eliminate the space between the letter "e" and the
"/"? Is it telling me to drop the ">"?

Same question on line 33, column 6

Why does it have a problem with the letter "K" ?
Line 33, column 5: Why is not a <br /> allowed there and why does it
assume I am missing an <li /> start tag? Isn't this the way XHTML wants
it done or should it be </li> after every item listed?

Same on all other errors. Please explain exactly what it wants me to do
to get passing score. No "technicalese" explanations please; just step
by step instructions.

Thanx,
SS

Apr 7 '06 #1
24 1493
Note: This is a practice project so don't take the "using strictly
HTML/XHTML, so you don't..." line seriously. This is my first attempt
at building a web page using only HTML without a web editor.

Apr 7 '06 #2
Els
sonnystarks wrote:
Created: http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/bio/ and attempted
XHTML Transitional validation. Came up with 13 errors that do not make
sense. Please do same and tell me what it is asking for, for example,
on line 29, column 25: <hr width="50" noshade />.

Is it telling me to eliminate the space between the letter "e" and the
"/"? Is it telling me to drop the ">"?
No, it's telling you you can't have noshade without an equal sign (=)
and delimiters (" ") with it.
Same question on line 33, column 6

Why does it have a problem with the letter "K" ?
Because it's outside the <li> element. You closed the <li> by adding a
/ before the >. Correct would be <li>Knowing.... </li>
Line 33, column 5: Why is not a <br /> allowed there and why does it
assume I am missing an <li /> start tag?
Same thing. It's still outside the <li> element.
Isn't this the way XHTML wants
it done or should it be </li> after every item listed?
Nope, XHTML wants you to close each element. But not before the actual
content of it :-)

The only elements that receive a /> to close it, are those that don't
need to enclose content, like for instance <hr />, <br /> and <img
src="" alt="" />
Same on all other errors. Please explain exactly what it wants me to do
to get passing score. No "technicalese" explanations please; just step
by step instructions.


I think what would be best, is use HTML instead of XHTML, as XHTML has
no advantage over HTML unless you really know what you're doing with
the XML stuff. (you're not doing anything with XML afaics)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Now playing: Camel - Metrognome
Apr 7 '06 #3
On 6 Apr 2006 23:33:40 -0700, "sonnystarks" <si***********@comcast.net>
wrote:
Line 33, column 5: Why is not a <br /> allowed there and why does it
assume I am missing an <li /> start tag? Isn't this the way XHTML wants
it done or should it be </li> after every item listed?


I don't think <li /> is right because <li> isn't an empty element. Can
you try <li> blah blah blah </li> ?

--
Steven
Apr 7 '06 #4
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 08:57:51 +0200, Els <el*********@tiscali.nl> wrote:
I think what would be best, is use HTML instead of XHTML, as XHTML has
no advantage over HTML unless you really know what you're doing with
the XML stuff. (you're not doing anything with XML afaics)


And use Strict for new pages. Transitional is only for tidying-up old
pages.

In summary: use HTML 4.01 Strict unless you have a strong reason for
doing something else.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Apr 7 '06 #5
On 6 Apr 2006, sonnystarks wrote:
No "technicalese" explanations please; just step
by step instructions.


Consider collecting stamps instead.

--
The 6th of June is Bill Gates Day.

Apr 7 '06 #6
sonnystarks wrote:
No "technicalese" explanations please; just step by step instructions.


Don't use XHTML.

If you don't want "technicalese" (quite reasonable) then stick with
HTML 4.01 Strict. XHTML _must_ have quite a bit of technical
understanding behind it if it's to even potentially offer any benefit
over HTML (and it's arguable even then). XHTML certainly isn't "HTML
5" or "the latest and greatest thing".

Apr 7 '06 #7

Try this online checker. You may find it easier to use and understand.
http://onlinewebcheck.com/?url=www.w...tarks.com/bio/

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"sonnystarks" <si***********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:11*********************@v46g2000cwv.googlegro ups.com...
Created: http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/bio/ and attempted
XHTML Transitional validation. Came up with 13 errors that do not make
sense. Please do same and tell me what it is asking for, for example,
on line 29, column 25: <hr width="50" noshade />.

Is it telling me to eliminate the space between the letter "e" and the
"/"? Is it telling me to drop the ">"?

Same question on line 33, column 6

Why does it have a problem with the letter "K" ?
Line 33, column 5: Why is not a <br /> allowed there and why does it
assume I am missing an <li /> start tag? Isn't this the way XHTML wants
it done or should it be </li> after every item listed?

Same on all other errors. Please explain exactly what it wants me to do
to get passing score. No "technicalese" explanations please; just step
by step instructions.

Thanx,
SS

Apr 8 '06 #8
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Try this online checker.


You seem to think it's once again time to advertize your own product,
the phoney "validator". You now say it's a "checker", yet sell it as
"validator", even though it has been explained several times (in your
presence) that it is nowhere near a validator.

In this world of extensive marketing, such dishonesty is a good enough
reason to stop considering such an alternative.

P.S. Thanks for upside-down fullquoting. It's a useful reminder of the
fact that you don't know (or don't respect) the habits of this group -
rather understandably, since you drop in just rarely and only to
advertize your product.
Apr 8 '06 #9

I'm glad that you mentioned OnlineWebCheck.com is not a validator. That is
true, but only in the strict technical sense of the word validator (but not
in common usage, by the way). I don't, and never did, dispute that. The good
thing about non-real validators is that they are able to find problems that
a "real" validator one can't. They can also provide helpful advice and tips,
and can be much more helpful. Some (like CSE HTML Validator) can check CSS,
spelling, and accessibility, all quickly and easily. Furthermore, many of
them can be configured to a much greater degree according to what the web
developer wants. As for the problems "real" validators miss like the W3C
HTML Validator, see
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

While real validators can certainly be helpful, there are other checkers
that can be just as, if not more useful. They can be used with a real
validator if the end user so desires. So while someone can use our product,
they certainly aren't limited to using it. There are other tools available
too that provide useful checks, like HTML Tidy, which some people like. But
I can say that thousands of people use and like the high level degree of
syntax checking that CSE HTML Validator provides. For many, it makes
checking pages a lot better and easier and it finds more problems.

There's a common misbelief is some groups that people should ONLY use a real
validator because that's the only "good" way to check a document. That is
completely false! A real validator can be helpful, but it is by no means
proof that a document is problem-free. There are many HTML and real-world
issues that a real validator will completely ignore and is incapable of
checking for. See the above link for examples.

As for top posting, I like it better and I believe most people do as well.
It's not that I'm trying to disrespect anyone. I think it's disrespectful
when someone tries to help and is criticized, which is far too common on the
web. Besides, I see that you often advertise your own website when trying to
help others. I don't mind that at all as long as it is relevent to the
discussion/question.

So if I am browsing an HTML newsgroup and see a post that I can help with, I
may choose to assist and post a reply. If you feel that you have a vendetta
against me or don't like my posting style, then feel free to email me
privately and not publically. You can go to this page:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/webemailform.php

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:e1**********@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Try this online checker.


You seem to think it's once again time to advertize your own product, the
phoney "validator". You now say it's a "checker", yet sell it as
"validator", even though it has been explained several times (in your
presence) that it is nowhere near a validator.

In this world of extensive marketing, such dishonesty is a good enough
reason to stop considering such an alternative.

P.S. Thanks for upside-down fullquoting. It's a useful reminder of the
fact that you don't know (or don't respect) the habits of this group -
rather understandably, since you drop in just rarely and only to advertize
your product.

Apr 8 '06 #10
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Albert Wiersch"
<do********@123donotreply123.com> writing in
news:12*************@corp.supernews.com:
I'm glad that you mentioned OnlineWebCheck.com is not a validator.
That is true, but only in the strict technical sense of the word
validator (but not in common usage, by the way). I don't, and never
did, dispute that. The good thing about non-real validators is that
they are able to find problems that a "real" validator one can't.


The real problem I see with this "service" is that it is misleading. For
example, <http://www.american-loyalty-card.com/index.asp> passes strict
W3 validation, passes CSS validation, and Cynthia Says Accessibility
validation; OnLineWebCheck states "The lite edition missed 2 warnings
that the standard or professional edition would have found."

So I downloaded the Pro Trial version. There was one warning: "The
"style" attribute has been used but a default style sheet language has
not been defined". The style element does not have a language attribute,
and the style attribute cannot have a language or any other attribute,
because it itself _IS_ an attribute. The style element does have a type
attribute, and that has already been set in the document as text/css.
External stylesheets also have their type set as well.

IMHO, this product is misleading, and could lead the novice into putting
invalid markup to satisfy the checker.

--
Adrienne Boswell
Please respond to the group so others can share
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Apr 9 '06 #11
Albert Wiersch wrote:
As for top posting, I like it better and I believe most people do as
well.


Many/most Outlook Express users seem to...

open the front cover and begin reading there?
the back cover and end up at the front or do you
chapter one or do you start somewhere near
When reading a book, do you start at

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer
Apr 9 '06 #12

Actually, when I read a book, I read by pages and in order. When I turn to
page 2, I read it. I don't turn to page 2, then go back to page 1 to see
what was before it and then go back to page 2. Similarly, when I go to page
3, I like to read the new text on page 3 without turning back to page 2 and
rereading the page.

OR, imagine a book where every time you turned a new page, sentences and
paragraphs from the previous page you just read were quoted before the new
text. That would drive me crazy, and obviously, books aren't written that
way. If I want to reread text, then I simply go to the previous pagend
reread it.

Anyway, read the way you want and post the way you want. It's just a matter
of opinion so not a big deal. It's not worth arguing about, though I don't
find your analogy comparable.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:o6**************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Albert Wiersch wrote:
As for top posting, I like it better and I believe most people do as
well.


Many/most Outlook Express users seem to...

open the front cover and begin reading there?
the back cover and end up at the front or do you
chapter one or do you start somewhere near
When reading a book, do you start at

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer


Apr 9 '06 #13

Hi Andienne,

I believe you are misunderstanding the message. Yes, the "style" element has
no language attribute, but this comes from the HTML specification for the
"style" attribute:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present...tml#adef-style
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present...#default-style

It says:
Authors should use the META element to set the default style sheet language
for a document. For example, to set the default to CSS, authors should put
the following declaration in the HEAD of their documents:
<META http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">

It also says:
Documents that include elements that set the style attribute but which don't
define a default style sheet language are incorrect. Authoring tools should
generate default style sheet language information (typically a META
declaration) so that user agents do not have to rely on a default of
"text/css".

The above is what the message is referring to. I should make it more clear.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Adrienne Boswell" <ar****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xn****************************@69.28.186.121. ..

The real problem I see with this "service" is that it is misleading. For
example, <http://www.american-loyalty-card.com/index.asp> passes strict
W3 validation, passes CSS validation, and Cynthia Says Accessibility
validation; OnLineWebCheck states "The lite edition missed 2 warnings
that the standard or professional edition would have found."

So I downloaded the Pro Trial version. There was one warning: "The
"style" attribute has been used but a default style sheet language has
not been defined". The style element does not have a language attribute,
and the style attribute cannot have a language or any other attribute,
because it itself _IS_ an attribute. The style element does have a type
attribute, and that has already been set in the document as text/css.
External stylesheets also have their type set as well.

IMHO, this product is misleading, and could lead the novice into putting
invalid markup to satisfy the checker.

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

Apr 9 '06 #14
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
The real problem I see with this "service" is that it is misleading.
Starting from its name, yes. Its advertizer admits that it is not a
validator, yet sells it as one. This, of course, is just the start.
OnLineWebCheck states "The lite edition missed 2 warnings
that the standard or professional edition would have found."
An attempt to make you interested and spend your money.
So I downloaded the Pro Trial version. There was one warning:
Apparently the pruhfessional "validator" isn't very good in arithmetics.
"The
"style" attribute has been used but a default style sheet language has
not been defined".


From a very technical standpoint, the warning points at a problem: the
HTML specification does not specify any general default style sheet
language, and whatever you set for <style> applies to that element only.

In practice, it is just another misleading statement. Browsers imply CSS
as the default style sheet language, and a <meta> tag that nominally
sets the default is useless technobabble. If an author wants to be
theoretically clean in using style sheets, it is surely better to stop
using style attributes altogether and use <style> elements or external
style sheets(together with class attributes as needed).
Apr 9 '06 #15
To further the education of mankind, "Albert Wiersch"
<do********@123donotreply123.com> declaimed:
I believe you are misunderstanding the message. Yes, the "style"
element has no language attribute, but this comes from the HTML
specification for the "style" attribute:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present...tml#adef-style
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present...#default-style

It says:
Authors should use the META element to set the default style sheet
language for a document. For example, to set the default to CSS,
authors should put the following declaration in the HEAD of their
documents: <META http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">

It also says:
Documents that include elements that set the style attribute but which
don't define a default style sheet language are incorrect. Authoring
tools should generate default style sheet language information
(typically a META declaration) so that user agents do not have to rely
on a default of "text/css".


You seem to be correct but that spec is typical w3c hyperbole. Meta tags
aren't reliable. What's wrong with a default UA style? What other styles
are there, esp. in common usage? And the one I like best, their use of
"language" in that context. I'd rant more but I gotta go play with some
unwilling-to-collapse vertical margins <Spit! />

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 9 '06 #16
Els
Neredbojias wrote:
unwilling-to-collapse vertical margins <Spit! />


Margins like that should be punished by setting them to 0 ;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
Apr 9 '06 #17

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Albert Wiersch spat in the face of usenet
netiquette by blurting out without relevant quote or attribution:
I'm glad that you mentioned OnlineWebCheck.com is not a validator.
That is true, but only in the strict technical sense of the word
validator
In an HTML context, the term "validator" has a strict technical
meaning, so it's unclear just why any other sense should be called
for in such a context.
(but not in common usage, by the way).
If "common usage" differs from the technical sense, then, when in a
technical context, it behoves one to stick to the technical sense.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" (and one might show the same
courtesy for the netiquette, by the way).
I don't, and never did, dispute that.
It looks very different, from where we're sitting.
The good thing about non-real validators is that they are able to
find problems that a "real" validator one can't.
As we've said for many years: both validators and checkers (linters)
are useful tools in an HTML context, but it's important to know which
is which. Nobody wants to be using a screwdriver in the mistaken
belief that it's a hammer, or vice versa. Both are valuable tools
when used properly.
They can also provide helpful advice and tips, and can be much more
helpful. Some (like CSE HTML Validator) can check CSS, spelling, and
accessibility, all quickly and easily.
So now we have *two* checkers mischievously trying to market
themselves for money as validators, instead of just the one. It makes
a fellow grateful for free software that doesn't try quite so hard to
confuse its customers.
There's a common misbelief is some groups that people should ONLY
use a real validator because that's the only "good" way to check a
document.
That comes as news to me. Let's see you quote some convincing
examples of that. But I don't see how it helps to support your agenda
of confusing naive folks about the difference between them.
That is completely false!
Of course. But it's only a distraction from the substantive point,
that "validation" is a technical term in the HTML context, and your
software is something else.
As for top posting, I like it better


And your individual "liking" takes priority over the established
netiquette? Seems to fit your style. Bye.
Apr 9 '06 #18
To further the education of mankind, Els <el*********@tiscali.nl>
declaimed:
Neredbojias wrote:
unwilling-to-collapse vertical margins <Spit! />


Margins like that should be punished by setting them to 0 ;-)


I was being sarcastic. Despite what the w3c says, vertical margins don't
collapse. Horizontal margins collapse. The margins on the top and bottom
of, say, a div, are horizontal. -Or at least they're usually horizontal;
if the margin exceeds the height of the div, I suppose it *could* be
considered vertical from a pseudo-geometric standpoint. Perhaps the w3c-
ites have a fondness for manipulating large margins, who knows? But in the
normal world, the coincidence of a margin being at a vertical end of a box
does NOT make that margin vertical. As I intimated, it's simple geometry.
And simple logic.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 9 '06 #19

I'm just going by what the specification says. CSE HTML Validator treats it
as a warning instead of an error due to the reasons you mention, but because
in real practice it's worthless as far as I know, perhaps I should further
downgrade the issue.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote in
message news:Xn**********************************@208.49.8 0.251...

You seem to be correct but that spec is typical w3c hyperbole. Meta tags
aren't reliable. What's wrong with a default UA style? What other styles
are there, esp. in common usage? And the one I like best, their use of
"language" in that context. I'd rant more but I gotta go play with some
unwilling-to-collapse vertical margins <Spit! />

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

Apr 9 '06 #20

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:e1**********@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
So I downloaded the Pro Trial version. There was one warning:


Apparently the pruhfessional "validator" isn't very good in arithmetics.

The other issue may have been an accessibility issue and accessbility
checking would need to be turned on to display it. Because there are so many
options in CSE HTML Validator, the number of issues found is highly
dependent on how the web developer sets the program up. This will cause the
message output to be different depending on the options being used.
Therefore, obviously it is not an addition or computer error.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Apr 9 '06 #21
To further the education of mankind, "Albert Wiersch"
<do********@123donotreply123.com> declaimed:

I'm just going by what the specification says. CSE HTML Validator
treats it as a warning instead of an error due to the reasons you
mention, but because in real practice it's worthless as far as I know,
perhaps I should further downgrade the issue.


In following your ongoing dialogue with the denizens here, I seem to see
you repeatedly make the point that there are mistakes which the official
validator does not, for whatever reason, catch. Sometimes, perhaps, the
reason is the fact that the official validator itself is in error. I
suggest the CSE checker might address this.

One example I know of is that for this line of css:

line-height:0;

The offical validator generates an error message despite the declaration
being perfectly valid. There are others as well.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 9 '06 #22
Els
Neredbojias wrote:
To further the education of mankind, Els <el*********@tiscali.nl>
declaimed:
Neredbojias wrote:
unwilling-to-collapse vertical margins <Spit! />


Margins like that should be punished by setting them to 0 ;-)


I was being sarcastic. Despite what the w3c says, vertical margins don't
collapse. Horizontal margins collapse. The margins on the top and bottom
of, say, a div, are horizontal. -Or at least they're usually horizontal;
if the margin exceeds the height of the div, I suppose it *could* be
considered vertical from a pseudo-geometric standpoint. Perhaps the w3c-
ites have a fondness for manipulating large margins, who knows? But in the
normal world, the coincidence of a margin being at a vertical end of a box
does NOT make that margin vertical. As I intimated, it's simple geometry.
And simple logic.


I can see where you're coming from, but I geometrically disagree :P
A margin of 15px on the right or left side of the box, is 15px
measured in horizontal direction. Just like a 10px margin at a
vertical end of a box measures 10px in vertical direction. Unless we
know the width of the box, there is no way to measure the horizontal
value of this top or bottom margin. Margin size is in width - not
length. IMNSHO the direction of a possible collapse is vertical on a
vertical margin, and horizontal on a horizontal margin.

(yes I did get your point ;-) )

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Now playing: Dr. Kasper's Rabbit Show - Latisia
Apr 9 '06 #23
To further the education of mankind, Els <el*********@tiscali.nl>
declaimed:
Neredbojias wrote:
To further the education of mankind, Els <el*********@tiscali.nl>
declaimed:
Neredbojias wrote:

unwilling-to-collapse vertical margins <Spit! />

Margins like that should be punished by setting them to 0 ;-)


I was being sarcastic. Despite what the w3c says, vertical margins
don't collapse. Horizontal margins collapse. The margins on the top
and bottom of, say, a div, are horizontal. -Or at least they're
usually horizontal; if the margin exceeds the height of the div, I
suppose it *could* be considered vertical from a pseudo-geometric
standpoint. Perhaps the w3c- ites have a fondness for manipulating
large margins, who knows? But in the normal world, the coincidence
of a margin being at a vertical end of a box does NOT make that
margin vertical. As I intimated, it's simple geometry. And simple
logic.


I can see where you're coming from, but I geometrically disagree :P
A margin of 15px on the right or left side of the box, is 15px
measured in horizontal direction. Just like a 10px margin at a
vertical end of a box measures 10px in vertical direction. Unless we
know the width of the box, there is no way to measure the horizontal
value of this top or bottom margin. Margin size is in width - not
length. IMNSHO the direction of a possible collapse is vertical on a
vertical margin, and horizontal on a horizontal margin.

(yes I did get your point ;-) )


All that is true, but the margin on the left or right is a margin to a
vertical dimension of the box. Therefore, no matter what its dimensions
really are, the margin is vertical as top and bottom margins are
horizontal. Would you call the top of a box a vertical side? If not,
how can it have a vertical margin?

I would also suggest that margin dimensions are adjusted in the direction
opposite to their orientation, like (physical) padding. If I pad the
bottom of a box, the extent of that padding may be vertical but the
padding itself is horizontal.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 10 '06 #24
Albert Wiersch wrote:

[re: top-posting]
Anyway, read the way you want and post the way you want. It's just a matter
of opinion so not a big deal.


Ya know, refusing to follow the well-publicized conventions of this
newsgroup will not help your case. It only makes you more troll-like
than you already appear to be.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Apr 10 '06 #25

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

3 posts views Thread by Ben Binskin | last post: by
72 posts views Thread by Stephen Poley | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Sudip Chakraborty | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by Ryan Ternier | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Shapper | last post: by
4 posts views Thread by Lloyd Dupont | last post: by
7 posts views Thread by h7qvnk7q001 | last post: by
reply views Thread by kamranasdasdas | last post: by
reply views Thread by gcreed | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.