Markup Validation Service ??

[Tantale]

I used this serviec to check my webpage
http://www.jmrw.com/Abroad/Barcelone/index.htm Made with Dreamweaver 8.

The result is 206 errors, most of them "end tag omitted, but OMITTAG NO was
specified.".

I don't understand this result. Should I modify something ?

Thanks

JMR

[Andy Dingley]

On 23 Mar, 10:03, "Tantale" <[e-mail]:

I used this serviec

Which service? The W3? There are many "HTML validators" out there and
some of them aren't accurate.

I would suggest either:
<http://validator.w3.org/>
<http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...w.com%2FAbroad
%2FBarcelone>

or the much more convenient Firefox plugin:
<http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/>

You're using XHTML 1.0 Transitional Appendix C

This is a bad idea (search the ng archives):

* XHTML is a bad idea
* Appendix C is forced upon you, but still not a simple choice

also
* Transitional markup is usually a bad idea for a new site.

I suggest you use HTML 4.01 Strict instead of any XHTML. This is best
and simplest.

If you insist on using XHTML, use XHTML 1.0 with Appendix C and learn
to do it correctly.

Don't use Transitional, use Strict (whether HTML or XHTML)

The result is 206 errors, most of them "end tag omitted, but OMITTAG NO was
specified.".

You've labelled your content as XHTML, but the markup is more like
HTML. In particular this HTML element
<link href="../../Styles/page_album.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/
css">

Should look like this for XHTML
<link href="../../Styles/page_album.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/
css" />

Note the "/" at the end of the tag.
This also applied to <imgand <brtags
Some other points:

* All XHTML tag names are lower case, so <SCRIPTshould be <script>

* Replace this: <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="Javascript">
with <script type="text/javascript" >

* Replace this: <p><a name="27" id="27"></a>
with this: <p id="id_27" >
- You don't need to use name, you can just use id
- If you use id rather than name, you can use any element, not just
<a>
- "27" isn't valid, as it begins with a digit
Your page also uses <tablemarkup. This is reasonable for a grid of
images, but it's still quite inflexible. If you search the ng archives
(maybe alt.html) there's a recent posting about a gallery of Ansel
Adams photos done with floated <divinstead. This works better than
<tablefor varying brrowser window sizes.

I also don't personally like DreamWeaver, as it's not helpful for
generating a valid site.

[Tantale]

Thanks a lot for your explanations.

After a little work my page I got "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01
Transitional!" from http://validator.w3.org/

I have download the of Firefox plugin
<http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/and I am going to learn to use
it..

So I am going to validate the other main pages of my website.

Best regards

JMR

[Bergamot]

Tantale wrote:

>
re: http://www.jmrw.com/Abroad/Barcelone/index.htm
After a little work my page I got "This Page Is Valid HTML 4.01
Transitional!" from http://validator.w3.org/

The problem with your resolution is that the DOCTYPE you've chosen is
triggering quirks mode. :(

http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/doctype.html

--
Berg

[Andy Dingley]

On 23 Mar, 12:21, "Tantale" <[e-mail]:

Thanks a lot for your explanations.

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of re-working the top-
row of your page, using floated <div>

<http://codesmiths.com/dingbat/lj/usenet/barcelona/
barcelona_floating.html>
(first 10 images are floated, rest are still in the <table>)

Please take a look and see what you think. I think you'll agree that
the code is simpler to author!
The layout isn't perfect (limited time), but it might give you some
ideas. Others' comments are welcome too.

[Andy Dingley]

On 23 Mar, 11:01, "Andy Dingley" <[e-mail]:

(maybe alt.html) there's a recent posting about a gallery of Ansel
Adams photos done with floated <divinstead. This works better than
<tablefor varying brrowser window sizes.

http://www.littleworksstudio.com/tem...l.20070216.php

[Tantale]

Dreamweaver8 produces this code for a table in pages like
http://www.jmrw.com/France/Strasbour...083610_jpg.htm

I use the table for the picture be centered in any navigator.

But I get a warning from http://validator.w3.org/ :there is no attribute
"HEIGHT".

What should I do for correct my code ?

Thanks

[Stan Brown]

Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:14:06 +0100 from Tantale <Da***@ifrance.com>:

Dreamweaver8 produces this code for a table in pages like
http://www.jmrw.com/France/Strasbour...083610_jpg.htm

I use the table for the picture be centered in any navigator.

But I get a warning from http://validator.w3.org/ :there is no attribute
"HEIGHT".

What should I do for correct my code ?

Remove the incorrect attribute 'height', of course.

Which part of "there *is* no attribute 'height'" was too hard to
understand?

Sheesh!

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

[Ben C]

On 2007-03-24, Tantale <Da***@ifrance.comwrote:

Dreamweaver8 produces this code for a table in pages like
http://www.jmrw.com/France/Strasbour...083610_jpg.htm

I use the table for the picture be centered in any navigator.

But I get a warning from http://validator.w3.org/ :there is no attribute
"HEIGHT".

What should I do for correct my code ?

Just use <table style="width: 100%; height: 90%;"instead.

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Ben C:

>But I get a warning from http://validator.w3.org/ :there is no
attribute "HEIGHT".

It is an error message, not a warning. An error message indicates violation
of published specification. A warning might indicate about anything.

>What should I do for correct my code ?

Just use <table style="width: 100%; height: 90%;"instead.

Not really.

The impression of "working" is caused by the use of a document type
declaration that does not match the published specifications and makes many
browsers go into "quirks mode". You can see this if you change the
declaration to a correct one (with a URL):

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

In "standards mode", i.e. on modern browsers when they do their best to
comply with specifications, you also need something like

<style type="text/css">
html, body { height: 100%; }
</style>

On the other hand, in this case, as so often, there's really no need to set
the height. The page contains a very large image ("very large" in terms of
what you should normally use for images embedded into web pages), and the
odds are that the page fills the available height anyway. If it doesn't,
don't make it do that.

So just removing the attribute height="90%" is the best solution (to this
specific problem - it would be easy to remove the use of tables on the page
altogether, and using nested tables for a simple layout like this is clearly
overkill).

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Tantale]

>It is an error message, not a warning. An error message indicates violation

>of published specification. A warning might indicate about anything.

Yes for http://validator.w3.org/ but for the extension HTML Validator of
Firefox it is just a warning.

>It would be easy to remove the use of tables on the page altogether, and
using nested tables for a simple layout like this is clearly overkill).

I can remove the inner table but the result is sligthly different :
http://www.jmrw.com/France/Strasbour...610_jpgdel.htm
instead of
http://www.jmrw.com/France/Strasbour...083610_jpg.htm

I prefer the border of the picture in the second case, but maybe it is
question of taste.

If I change <table width="100%" height="90%"with <table style="width:
100%; height: 90%;"it works
with
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
but as you say not with the full correct declaration :
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

and moreover, Dreamweaver 8 doens't understand <table style="width: 100%;
height: 90%;"in the fields proprieties of the table.

So just removing the attribute height="90%" is the best solution (to this
specific problem -

But for me it is very important the image to be vertically centered. So I am
still looking for a good solution.

JMR

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Tantale:

Yes for http://validator.w3.org/ but for the extension HTML Validator
of Firefox it is just a warning.

Then it's wrong, to the extent that it purports to be a validator.

I can remove the inner table but the result is sligthly different :

...

I prefer the border of the picture in the second case, but maybe it is
question of taste.

I can't see the difference, but in any case, the border of a picture can be
created
a) using image processing software or
b) using border properties in CSS
more naturally than using a table.

and moreover, Dreamweaver 8 doens't understand <table style="width:
100%; height: 90%;"in the fields proprieties of the table.

Well, you don't need the table. Regarding authoring software, isn't it
supposed to help the author and not create restraints and inconveniences and
confusing code?

>So just removing the attribute height="90%" is the best solution (to
this specific problem -

But for me it is very important the image to be vertically centered.

Really? Then will you buy me a larger monitor so that I can see it
vertically centered? It simply doesn't fit, so there's no room for
centering. Besides, I don't see how the approach would make it vertically
centered in a taller window. You're setting the height of the table to 90%.
How would that center the image?

So I am still looking for a good solution.

You now have the appearance you want, I guess. So what are you trying to
achieve? Which army is forcing you to make your page valid? Anyway, I
already described what additional rules you need in CSS for the centering.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Andy Dingley]

On 25 Mar, 08:57, "Tantale" <[e-mail]:

It is an error message, not a warning. An error message indicates violation
of published specification. A warning might indicate about anything.

Yes forhttp://validator.w3.org/but for the extension HTML Validator of
Firefox it is just a warning.

My copy of 0.8.3.4 (just updating it to the latest 0.8.3.9) reports
this correctly as an error, not a warning. It's a good and accurate
validator - I have confidence in it, so I suspect you may have mis-
read the message.

I can remove the inner table but the result is sligthly different

If you want the more complex border, then you can have this too. Just
nest a couple of <divand use CSS approriately.

You should ditch the nested table markup, especially on your
thumbnails pages, simply because it is hideously over-complex for you
to author it. I'm not talking about it looking better, or giving a
better result, it's just far simpler and quicker to produce it.

and moreover, Dreamweaver 8 doens't understand <table style="width: 100%;
height: 90%;"in the fields proprieties of the table.

That's a criticism of Dreamweaver, not HTML. If your tool is fighting
against you doing it the better and easier way, why use that tool?

[Tantale]

>My copy of 0.8.3.4 (just updating it to the latest 0.8.3.9) reports

>this correctly as an error, not a warning. It's a good and accurate
validator - I have confidence in it, so I suspect you may have mis-
read the message.

I use copy 0.8.3.9) from http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/ and for the
height I get a warning and not en error .
<table width="100%" height="90%" --- line 9 column 1 - Warning:
<tableproprietary attribute "height"I don't understand why you get an
error and me a warningBest RegardsJMR

[Andy Dingley]

On 26 Mar, 14:35, "Tantale" <[e-mail]:

I don't understand why you get an error and me a warning

What are you validating? I'm looking at the following URL
http://www.jmrw.com/France/Strasbour...083610_jpg.htm
Behaviour for local files may well be different.

[Tantale]

"Andy Dingley" <di*****@codesmiths.coma écrit dans le message de news:
11*********************@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om...

On 26 Mar, 14:35, "Tantale" <[e-mail]:

>I don't understand why you get an error and me a warning

What are you validating? I'm looking at the following URL
http://www.jmrw.com/France/Strasbour...083610_jpg.htm
Behaviour for local files may well be different.

Yes this URL and I get : ----- line 10 column 1 - Warning: <table>
proprietary attribute "height"

I think it is because I use the algorhithm HTML tidy, and your, Serial or
SGML parser. (Options)

JMR

[Andy Dingley]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:01:21 +0200, "Tantale" <Da***@ifrance.comwrote:

>I think it is because I use the algorhithm HTML tidy, and your, Serial or
SGML parser. (Options)

Ah! Use the "Serial" option and run both.