xhtml

[maya]

pls, what is wrong with this line?

<tr><td align="left" class="bold">text here
2006</br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;text here</td>

this line gives me an error when validating.. (when try to validate for
css here, http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...or-uri.html.en..
can't you validate css without validating xml?)

you can't have </br> inside a <td>? what a pain..

(also find you can't have stuff like 'nowrap' inside <td>'s... this IS
a pain..)

thank you...

[Steven Saunderson]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 23:13:22 -0400, maya <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote:

you can't have </br> inside a <td>? what a pain..

I'd try <br/> instead of </br>.

--
Steven

[maya]

Steven Saunderson wrote:

On Thu, 25 May 2006 23:13:22 -0400, maya <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote:

you can't have </br> inside a <td>? what a pain..

I'd try <br/> instead of </br>.

oh my gosh.. this is embarrassing... thank you.....:(

I have one more question... what does this error mean?

Open quote is expected for attribute "name" associated with an element
type "param".

code is:

<param name="quality" value="high"/>

(to embed a Flash movie..)

thanks again...

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, maya
<fd***@yahoo.com> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

pls, what is wrong with this line?

<tr><td align="left" class="bold">text here
2006</br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;text here</td>
a) Use of deprecated align attribute - use CSS.
b) </br> - in HTML forbidden, in XHTML missing the start tag and not
recommended anyway (support is questionable at best). Use <br> (HTML) or
<br /> (XHTML).
c) Non-breaking spaces for indentation - use CSS.

Impossible to tell from the example, but hopefully that *is* actually
tabular data. Otherwise:

d) (Ab)use of tables for layout purposes.
(also find you can't have stuff like 'nowrap' inside <td>'s... this IS
a pain..)

nowrap IIRC was *never* a part of any (X)HTML specifications, it was a
proprietary addition. Use white-space: nowrap; instead.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Mark Parnell <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> scripsit:

(also find you can't have stuff like 'nowrap' inside <td>'s... this
IS a pain..)

nowrap IIRC was *never* a part of any (X)HTML specifications, it was a
proprietary addition.

The nowrap attribute has been allowed in <td> (and <th>) elements from the
very beginning, i.e. from the inclusion of tables into HTML in HTML 3.2. It
was however deprecated in HTML 4.0, but it's still valid and occasionally
quite useful. I find it much simpler and clearer to write, say, <td
nowrap>foo-1</td> than to use CSS on a casual cell that happens to contain a
string that popular browsers like to break but should not be broken.

You might have confused this with the <nobr> markup, which is indeed a
proprietary, though widely supported and mostly harmless addition.

Whether nowrap would be a suitable method in this case depends on what the
case really is. All we got is a very small snippet of HTML markup, with the
content transmogrified so that all meaning is lost.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Jukka K. Korpela]

maya <fd***@yahoo.com> scripsit:

I have one more question...
You should have started a new thread if you have a completely unrelated
question, as it seems. That way, you could have used a meaningful Subject
line, as you should. The Subject line should tell what the message is about,
as specifically as possible.
what does this error mean?
And where did you get this error? From some validator or another checker?
And what was the URL of your page?
Open quote is expected for attribute "name" associated with an element
type "param".
So which software issued this, for which document?
code is:

<param name="quality" value="high"/>
What is the URL?
(to embed a Flash movie..)

"Flash: 99% bad", says Jakob Nielsen, for good reasons.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

The nowrap attribute has been allowed in <td> (and <th>) elements from the
very beginning, i.e. from the inclusion of tables into HTML in HTML 3.2.
Ah, thanks for that. Didn't get a chance to check, hence my uncertainty.
I find it much simpler and clearer to write, say, <td
nowrap>foo-1</td> than to use CSS on a casual cell that happens to contain a
string that popular browsers like to break but should not be broken.
Plus CSS is supposed to be optional, and a string not breaking could
perhaps be more important than a presentational suggestion.
You might have confused this with the <nobr> markup, which is indeed a
proprietary, though widely supported and mostly harmless addition.

Could be.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[Andy Dingley]

maya wrote:

pls, what is wrong with this line?

Post a URL. It's pointless trying to fix validation errors from
snippets.

[maya]

Mark Parnell wrote:

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

The nowrap attribute has been allowed in <td> (and <th>) elements from the
very beginning, i.e. from the inclusion of tables into HTML in HTML 3.2.

Ah, thanks for that. Didn't get a chance to check, hence my uncertainty.

I find it much simpler and clearer to write, say, <td
nowrap>foo-1</td> than to use CSS on a casual cell that happens to contain a
string that popular browsers like to break but should not be broken.

Plus CSS is supposed to be optional, and a string not breaking could
perhaps be more important than a presentational suggestion.

You might have confused this with the <nobr> markup, which is indeed a
proprietary, though widely supported and mostly harmless addition.

please, what do you mean by "proprietary"? thanks..



Could be.

[maya]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

maya <fd***@yahoo.com> scripsit:

I have one more question...

You should have started a new thread if you have a completely unrelated
question, as it seems. That way, you could have used a meaningful
Subject line, as you should. The Subject line should tell what the
message is about, as specifically as possible.

what does this error mean?

And where did you get this error? From some validator or another
checker? And what was the URL of your page?

on the CSS checker at w3c.. http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
when file is xhtml, it checks for XML syntax first..

and on this code,

<param name="quality" value="high"/>

I get below error:

Open quote is expected for attribute "name" associated with an element
type "param".

??

So which software issued this, for which document?

code is:

<param name="quality" value="high"/>

What is the URL?

http://www.francesdelrio.com/pf.html
(ignore "close window" link pls, this goes in a pop-up (no anti-pop-up
coments pls, I've heard them all....;) thanks..

(to embed a Flash movie..)

"Flash: 99% bad", says Jakob Nielsen, for good reasons.

"Flash: 99% bad" meaning?? you're not supposed to embed Flash movies?
(I mean .swf files..) ??

thanks..

[Andy Dingley]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:28:06 -0400, maya <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote:

on the CSS checker at w3c.. http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
when file is xhtml, it checks for XML syntax first..
This document isn't XML, it's served as a content-type of text/html and
so it should be parsed as SGML, not XML. Read Appendix C of the XHTML
Recommendation.

Or ditch the XHTML altogether, because this page gains nothing from
using it.
and on this code,

<param name="quality" value="high"/>

I get below error:

Open quote is expected for attribute "name" associated with an element
type "param".

Try this one, just after it
<param name=bgcolor value="#000000"/>

Should be
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/>

[Jack]

maya wrote:

"Flash: 99% bad", says Jakob Nielsen, for good reasons.

"Flash: 99% bad" meaning?? you're not supposed to embed Flash
movies? (I mean .swf files..) ??

Roughly.

Flash is bad *here*, because I can't view it. I can't view it because I
don't have the plug-in installed on my browser-of-choice (FF). I don't
have it installed because I prefer to have my browser configured to
support open standards only. That's because I don't want to see a
proprietary web.

When that browser is directed to a site that contains Flash, the
possible outcomes are:

1. The site requires Flash. If I absolutely have to see the site anyway,
I deploy my backup browser (IE), which I reserve only for testing and
for viewing Flash sites. In the normal case, I simply close the FF
browser window.

2. The site can be viewed without Flash. It's rare that I visit a Flash
site that provides adequate support for Flash-less visitors; at the very
least, there's usually a huge pane in the browser window asking me to
download a plug-in, for example. However if my Flashlessness is handled
fairly unobtrusively by the site, I may continue to browse.

I think perhaps 99% is an exaggeration. There's not that much that's
intrisically wrong with Flash technology, other than the (apparent?)
absence of a fallback mechanism for Flashless visitors. But that's the
point: Flash webdesigners tend to assume that all visitors are
Flash-tolerant, and even that their visitors *like* five-minute,
content-free animated trailers. So I'd amend Jakob's observation to
"Flash webdesigners: 99% bad".

My guess is that about 50% of visitors will skip Flash trailers on the
first visit (if they are given the chance); I doubt that many Flash
trailers get a second viewing from more than about 1% of visitors. Flash
menus are an abomination, because they render a site unusable without
Flash. On extremely rare occasions, I've visited Flash sites that were
really fantastic; typically these were exhibitions of Flash virtuosity,
and completely content-free.

So Why don't Flash sites degrade gracefully on Flashless browsers? *Is*
there a fallback mechanism? Is it just that Flash webdesigners all have
their heads stuck somewhere warm and dark, and refuse to consider
Flashless visitors? Or is the Flash technology such that it's impossible
to put Flash on a site in such a way that a Flashless visitor can pass
by without noticing?

--
Jack.

[Spartanicus]

Jack <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote:

So Why don't Flash sites degrade gracefully on Flashless browsers? *Is*
there a fallback mechanism?

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html

--
Spartanicus

[Henri Sivonen]

In article <ak********************************@4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote:

This document isn't XML, it's served as a content-type of text/html and
so it should be parsed as SGML, not XML. Read Appendix C of the XHTML
Recommendation.

ITYM: should be parsed as tag soup. Parsing Web content as SGML outside
the SGML-based validators is mostly fiction.

--
Henri Sivonen
hs******@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sat, 27 May 2006, Jack wrote:

So Why don't Flash sites degrade gracefully on Flashless browsers?
Because Flash deezyners don't want them to?
*Is* there a fallback mechanism?

Of course; but they're far too "clever" to use anything so
straightforward and documented.

Some of them have even found a "clever" way to not only tell me I
can't use it (in fact, I can use it - but the flashblock extension[1]
means that it won't be played unless and until *I* decide to play it),
but they even contrive somehow to suppress the flashblock's play
button, so that I really can't play it, not even if I want to.

Instead they replace their force-fed flash with something that
commands me to install the latest version, when in fact I've already
got the latest version.

I suppose I /could/ have stayed around and analysed just what they
were doing wrong (and even kept the URL), but I was so annoyed that I
simply left, and forgot the URL.

These charlatans rely on force-feeding for their effect. It isn't
just that they don't care about readers with a mind of their own: they
are actively hostile to them.

These sort of pages also tend to come with cookie prompts from half a
dozen different affiliate servers with bizarre names, meaning that my
long list of "never accept cookies from this site" entries just grows
and grows. But I digress. Well, maybe not - it all seems to be part
of the "we are in control, you're just another dumb user - if you
don't like it then get lost" attitude of these kind of deezyners.

sigh

[1] http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

[Andy Dingley]

On Sat, 27 May 2006 13:24:28 +0300, Henri Sivonen <hs******@iki.fi>
wrote:

ITYM: should be parsed as tag soup.

Fair enough. But "Web-footed bastard child of SGML" style, rather than
the equivalent for XML.

[Jack]

Spartanicus wrote:

Jack <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote:

So Why don't Flash sites degrade gracefully on Flashless browsers?
*Is* there a fallback mechanism?

http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html

Thanks! TBH, I didn't know fershure that the proper tag for Flash was
<object>, but it stands to reason, no other (standard) tag seeming
appropriate.

But then why do half the world's websites just show me a pane (pain?)
asking me to download a plugin? - That's a rhetorical question - the
answer is "Arrogance, or laziness. Probably both."

--
Jack.

[Jack]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

These charlatans rely on force-feeding for their effect. It isn't
just that they don't care about readers with a mind of their own:
they are actively hostile to them.

Relying on force-feeding in a "pull" environment is the acme of
stupidity. One of the most beautiful things about the WWW is that I get
to choose the content I'm going to rest my peepers on. If Flash
designers are hostile to me, no sweat; I won't hang around when it's
obvious I'm not welcome.

Soon TV will be like that; if you insist on pushing noisy, shouting ads
full of commands to buy this or that, your channel will lose eyeballs.

--
Jack.

[Stephen Poley]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 09:54:13 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

(to embed a Flash movie..)

"Flash: 99% bad", says Jakob Nielsen, for good reasons.

To be fair, it's probably down to 90% bad now. There is a growing number
of sites making sensible use of Flash, though they are still in the
minority.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[maya]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

On Sat, 27 May 2006, Jack wrote:

So Why don't Flash sites degrade gracefully on Flashless browsers?

Because Flash deezyners don't want them to?

ok ok ok... I happen to be a web developer looking for work right now..
I did my web p'folio in Flash a no. of years ago, and it happens to be a
cool little design (no useless intro, not much animation), have left it
as is mainly to show I know basic Flash at least...;) (yes, I guess I
should at some point do a 'flashless' alternative, but it's not a
priority (lots of other priorities right now, like improving my
XSLT/XPath, JSP skills, learn AJAX, etc..) and I figure folks looking to
hire a web developer/designer and looking my p'folio will all have Flash
plug-in installed (however, point taken..)

(same reason why have converted most of my pgs to XHTML, although I find
it a huge pain in the behind.. not sure what the point of it is... if
you can achieve the same results w/plain HTML.. even for XSLT
transformations it's not essential, you can transform into plain HTML..)

thanks again for all help/comments...