By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,246 Members | 1,401 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,246 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

beginning with XHTML 1.0

P: n/a
I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document valid.

But I got a feedback which sounds as if I should change something in my
document:

The document located at <http://www.kantele.de/> was tentatively
found to be Valid. That means it would validate as XHTML 1.0
Transitional if you updated the source document to match the options
used (typically this message indicates that you used either the Document
Type override or the Character Encoding override).

I suppose that the document declaration at the beginning of my document
is not correct.

At the end of the document there is the icon for HTML 4.01,
where can I get the coresponding icon for XHTML 1.0

Thanks for help

Werner

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
17 Replies


P: n/a
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:26:42 +0200, Werner Partner <ka****@sonoptikon.de>
wrote:
I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document valid.

But I got a feedback which sounds as if I should change something in my
document:

The document located at <http://www.kantele.de/> was tentatively
found to be Valid. That means it would validate as XHTML 1.0
Transitional if you updated the source document to match the options
used (typically this message indicates that you used either the Document
Type override or the Character Encoding override).

I suppose that the document declaration at the beginning of my document
is not correct.

At the end of the document there is the icon for HTML 4.01,
where can I get the coresponding icon for XHTML 1.0

Thanks for help

Werner


You have

<!doctype html
public "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

Capitalize "DOCTYPE" and "PUBLIC"

<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

and it should work.

If I were you, I'd change <meta></meta> to <meta /> - same with <br />,
<hr /> and <img />.

Actually if I were you, I'd use a strict DTD (either XHTML or HTML 4.01)
for a new document and replace all deprecated HTML with stylesheet info.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the sense of XHTML if you're
using font tags and such.
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
Capitalize "DOCTYPE" and "PUBLIC"


I hadn't realized that XML really makes those strings case sensitive.
The validator's behavior is rather odd. It should naturally report that
there was no document type declaration available, hence validation is by
definition impossible. Instead it seems to imply HTML 4.01 Transitional
without saying so.

There's a validator with more readable reports at
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/
(though it is technically in error in the sense of accepting the strings
doctype and public in lower case in XHTML).

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Werner Partner <ka****@sonoptikon.de> wrote:
I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document
valid.
Not really. The validator's report is misleading, if not plain wrong.
The document located at <http://www.kantele.de/> was tentatively
found to be Valid.
There's no such thing as being tentatively valid (any more like being
tentatively alive, or tentatively true), and whenever someone writes
"Valid" with capital initial inside normal text, some bogosity alert
bells should ring.
I suppose that the document declaration at the beginning of my
document is not correct.
Neal pointed out what was wrong with that. You had presumably tried to
validate the document as is, then used the "doctype override" feature in
the validator's user interface. The feature is useful per se, but the way
that the validator reports the effects is not. And you don't need the
feature if you change the doctype declaration.
At the end of the document there is the icon for HTML 4.01,
where can I get the coresponding icon for XHTML 1.0


The icons are worse than useless. They add nothing to the value of your
page, but the distract from the content and create enigmas to most users.
Besides, they may mislead other authors into "spreading the word".
For more details, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Neal schrieb:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 20:26:42 +0200, Werner Partner
<ka****@sonoptikon.de> wrote:
I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document valid.

But I got a feedback which sounds as if I should change something in
my document:

The document located at <http://www.kantele.de/> was tentatively
found to be Valid. That means it would validate as XHTML 1.0
Transitional if you updated the source document to match the options
used (typically this message indicates that you used either the
Document Type override or the Character Encoding override).

I suppose that the document declaration at the beginning of my
document is not correct.

At the end of the document there is the icon for HTML 4.01,
where can I get the coresponding icon for XHTML 1.0

Thanks for help

Werner

You have

<!doctype html
public "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

Capitalize "DOCTYPE" and "PUBLIC"

<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

and it should work.

If I were you, I'd change <meta></meta> to <meta /> - same with <br />,
<hr /> and <img />.


Thanks! I think <meta>gwgb gbw gb ew bg ebg</meta> makes sense, and
<img>egvw egwewbg</img>, too.

But<hr /> an <br /> is indeed better!

Actually if I were you, I'd use a strict DTD (either XHTML or HTML 4.01)
for a new document and replace all deprecated HTML with stylesheet info.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the sense of XHTML if
you're using font tags and such.


That's the way. I used a less complicated document for tests, then I
will convert more and more documents. I began with tags only some years
ago. In the last two weeks I habe intensively chanced to "style=" options.

Werner
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela schrieb:
Werner Partner <ka****@sonoptikon.de> wrote:

I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document
valid.

Not really. The validator's report is misleading, if not plain wrong.

The document located at <http://www.kantele.de/> was tentatively
found to be Valid.

There's no such thing as being tentatively valid (any more like being
tentatively alive, or tentatively true), and whenever someone writes
"Valid" with capital initial inside normal text, some bogosity alert
bells should ring.


Yes! I understood it so that the Validator says: "We pass it through but
you should change some things". Anyway it should say what is wrong.

I suppose that the document declaration at the beginning of my
document is not correct.

Neal pointed out what was wrong with that. You had presumably tried to
validate the document as is, then used the "doctype override" feature in
the validator's user interface. The feature is useful per se, but the way
that the validator reports the effects is not. And you don't need the
feature if you change the doctype declaration.


(done)

At the end of the document there is the icon for HTML 4.01,
where can I get the coresponding icon for XHTML 1.0

The icons are worse than useless. They add nothing to the value of your
page, but the distract from the content and create enigmas to most users.
Besides, they may mislead other authors into "spreading the word".
For more details, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html


Very interesting and good article. For me in this phase now validation
is a control for me and my documents. The icon is insofar practical as I
just have to click on it, and validation begins. GMD ist very small and
fine, but I always have to write the link. Otherwise I can go from link
to link, and validate, validate, validate ...

You write about an interesting aspect of difference between German and
Finnish communication which puzzled me some years ago (Pertti Widén from
Turun Kauppaopisto has written an interesting article about that item):

We Germans give feedback even if there is nothing to say ("I have heared
and understood what you said"), Finnish people just say nothing. This
leads to several misunderstanding, so sometimes Germans think that the
Finnish partner has not heared or understood what he said. I suppose
that on the Finnish side there are thoughts like "Why does he explain so
much to me, does he think I'm stupid?").

regards to Tampere and thanks for the help

Werner
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Werner Partner <ka****@sonoptikon.de> wrote:
For me in this phase now
validation is a control for me and my documents. The icon is insofar
practical as I just have to click on it, and validation begins. GMD
ist very small and fine, but I always have to write the link.


You could bookmark the validation results page, like
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...www.kantele.de
Unfortunately both the W3C validator and the WDG validator use a
generic <title> element (like "Validation results") for their response
page - yet another "do as they teach, not as they do" thing. :-)
Of course the result page _should_ have a <title> like
Validation results for http://www.kantele.de
or
Validation results for Kantele
(using the <title> of the validated page; note however that this <title>
in turn is not optimal - it is not understandable in a global context).

But you can set the name of the bookmark manually, and this is less work
than adding those icons and links onto the pages themselves.

Admittedly there's the problem that bookmarks are browser-dependent.
But I don't think author's convenience should dictate what a page
contains. It's like an "equipment or crew visible" phenomenon in a movie.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Werner Partner wrote:
The icon is insofar practical as I
just have to click on it, and validation begins. GMD ist very small and
fine, but I always have to write the link. Otherwise I can go from link
to link, and validate, validate, validate ...


You might want to take a look at
http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/ then.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Werner Partner schrieb:
I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document valid.


Thanks for the help.
I was now working with a very small site, trying to convert everything
to XHTML 1.0 Strict. That means taking away all styles from tags and
putting them into the style sheet.

It went quite easy and o.k. (although there are some features which seem
not to be correct in my css-File). I checked the site and everything is
o.k (except <u>).

Now I see some differences between the original site and the new one.
New one:
http://www.kairos-bildung.de/index.html

Old one:
http://www.kairos-bildung.de/kontakt.php

It is easy to see if clicking in the first document on "[Kontakt]".

There are minimal differences in spacing and padding.

The original (korrect) source (kontakt.php) was:

----------------------
<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=1 width="100%">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#eeeeee" class="doc"></td>
<td bgcolor="#eeeeee" class="doc" valign="middle" width="100%"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#eeeeee" class="doc" valign="top" align="center"></td>
<td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top" width="100%"></td>
</tr>
</table>
----------------------

Now I have:
----------------------
<table class="frame">
<tr>
<td class="icon"></td>
<td class="banner"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="lframe"></td>
<td class="doc"></td>
</tr>
</table>

and these are the css lines:
----------------------
..frame { width:100%; }
/* <table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=1 width=\"100%\"> */

..icon { background-color:#EEEEEE; vertical-align:middle; padding:4px;
spacing:1px; width:1%;}
..banner { background-color:#EEEEEE; vertical-align:middle;
padding:4px;}
..lframe { background-color:#EEEEEE; vertical-align:top; padding:4px;
text-align:center; }
..doc { background-color:#FFFFFF; vertical-align:top; padding:4px;
text-align:left;}
----------------------

The main difference which I see is the grey frame under the Picture left
above which is normal thin in kontakt.php. I could not find out until
now what is the reason. The elements are somehow minimally differently
located.

The Text in the left frame is in kontakt.php above, in kairos.htm there
is more distance. In general, kontakt.php is correct, and I want to have
the same in index.html.

Thanks for help

Werner

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Werner Partner schrieb:
I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document valid.

Thanks for the help.
I was now working with a very small site, trying to convert everything
to XHTML 1.0 Strict. That means taking away all styles from tags and
putting them into the style sheet.

It went quite easy and o.k. (although there are some features which seem
not to be correct in my css-File). I checked the site and everything is
o.k (except <u>).

Now I see some differences between the original site and the new one.
New one:
http://www.kairos-bildung.de/index.html

Old one:
http://www.kairos-bildung.de/kontakt.php

It is easy to see if clicking in the first document on "[Kontakt]".

There are minimal differences in spacing and padding.

The original (korrect) source (kontakt.php) was:

----------------------
<table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=1 width="100%">
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#eeeeee" class="doc"></td>
<td bgcolor="#eeeeee" class="doc" valign="middle" width="100%"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td bgcolor="#eeeeee" class="doc" valign="top" align="center"></td>
<td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top" width="100%"></td>
</tr>
</table>
----------------------

Now I have:
----------------------
<table class="frame">
<tr>
<td class="icon"></td>
<td class="banner"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="lframe"></td>
<td class="doc"></td>
</tr>
</table>

and these are the css lines:
----------------------
..frame { width:100%; }
/* <table cellpadding=4 cellspacing=1 width=\"100%\"> */

..icon { background-color:#EEEEEE; vertical-align:middle; padding:4px;
spacing:1px; width:1%;}
..banner { background-color:#EEEEEE; vertical-align:middle;
padding:4px;}
..lframe { background-color:#EEEEEE; vertical-align:top; padding:4px;
text-align:center; }
..doc { background-color:#FFFFFF; vertical-align:top; padding:4px;
text-align:left;}
----------------------

The main difference which I see is the grey frame under the Picture left
above which is normal thin in kontakt.php. I could not find out until
now what is the reason. The elements are somehow minimally differently
located.

The Text in the left frame is in kontakt.php above, in kairos.htm there
is more distance. In general, kontakt.php is correct, and I want to have
the same in index.html.

Thanks for help

Werner

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fi> writes:
Werner Partner <ka****@sonoptikon.de> wrote:
For me in this phase now validation is a control for me and my
documents. The icon is insofar practical as I just have to click
on it, and validation begins. GMD ist very small and fine, but I
always have to write the link.


You could bookmark the validation results page, like
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...www.kantele.de


At the risk of heading in an off-topic direction, I wonder if there is
an alternative approach to easy validation of local documents. Let me
take the WDG Browse validator as an example, for it nicely validates
such documents.

I generate a large number of documents in emacs that are based on a
template that validates OK. However, the handiwork method I use lends
itself typos in the HTML coding that a validation quickly picks up. It
would be nice to create a macro in emacs that would pass the address
of the document displayed in the active buffer to the WDG site for
validation. For example, it would spot a <q> container that is not
closed.

I now rely on a quick visual inspection, which is of course
unreliable. If I were to go to my web browser, open the WDG Browse
page, browse for my local document and then validate it, it would end
up too complex and time-consuming a procedure if I had to repeat it
dozens of times a day.

The emacs side does not seem difficult, but I'm not sure whether I can
pass on a local address when I call the WDG validator. I'd like to
construct a "validate" command in emacs that causes my browser to
visit the WDG site and display the result of its validation of the
current document. This may be more an emacs question, but wondered if
folks had some insight on the web site end.

--
Haines Brown

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Werner Partner schrieb:
Werner Partner schrieb:
I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document valid.

Thanks for the help.
I was now working with a very small site, trying to convert everything
to XHTML 1.0 Strict. That means taking away all styles from tags and
putting them into the style sheet.


As I just see the cooperatoin with stylesheet works in my surrounding,
but not in the web.

I should proof that...

Werner

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Werner Partner schrieb:
Werner Partner schrieb:
Werner Partner schrieb:
I tried to begin with XHTML 1.0 and succeeded to get one document valid.


Thanks for the help.
I was now working with a very small site, trying to convert everything
to XHTML 1.0 Strict. That means taking away all styles from tags and
putting them into the style sheet.


As I just see the cooperatoin with stylesheet works in my surrounding,
but not in the web.

I should proof that...


[proofed] *g*

Werner
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
In article <87************@teufel.hartford-hwp.com>,
Haines Brown <br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> writes:
The emacs side does not seem difficult, but I'm not sure whether I can
pass on a local address when I call the WDG validator. I'd like to
construct a "validate" command in emacs that causes my browser to
visit the WDG site and display the result of its validation of the
current document. This may be more an emacs question, but wondered if
folks had some insight on the web site end.


Most mainstream browsers have validation packs either bundled or
available from third-parties. Emacs even has its own SGML mode,
though I'm afraid I can't help with setting it up.

But as regards validating as you work, you'd probably be better off
installing a validator locally than using an online service. As an
emacs person, I'd guess there's a strong chance you have the basic
GTK libraries available, in which case you could install validator-lite.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Haines Brown <br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> writes:
At the risk of heading in an off-topic direction, I wonder if there is
an alternative approach to easy validation of local documents.


Since you are using emacs, your situation is quite comfortable; if you
don't already have it on your system, get

PSGML
<http://www.lysator.liu.se/projects/about_psgml.html>

and

SP
<http://www.jclark.com/sp/>

Instead of SP you may want to alternatively try the patched version at
<http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/offline/>
which can resolve document instances and declaration subsets on remote
name based virtual hosts.

In SGML mode you can just type <C-c><C-v> to have the file in the
current buffer validated, with the result displayed in a split buffer.
Well, after you've put the proper instructions in your init file ;-)

But that shouldn't even be necessary when you use PSGML for the
authoring part, since it actually parses the doctype declaration and
only offers (numerous) valid options to insert/complete markup.
--
| ) 111010111011 | http://bednarz.nl/
-(
| ) Distribute me: http://binaries.bednarz.nl/mp3/aisha
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:08:50 +0200, Werner Partner <ka****@sonoptikon.de>
wrote:

Thanks! I think <meta>gwgb gbw gb ew bg ebg</meta> makes sense, and
<img>egvw egwewbg</img>, too.
But that's not what you have done, is it? How can text go between img
tags? Or, even weirder, meta tags?
But<hr /> an <br /> is indeed better!


Sure is.
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 17:54:26 GMT, Haines Brown
<br****@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
At the risk of heading in an off-topic direction, I wonder if there is
an alternative approach to easy validation of local documents. Let me
take the WDG Browse validator as an example, for it nicely validates
such documents.


Opera allows you to validate the current document (w3c only). IE also will
with the accessibility toolbar installed (w3c and wdg).
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
Neal schrieb:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:08:50 +0200, Werner Partner
<ka****@sonoptikon.de> wrote:

Thanks! I think <meta>gwgb gbw gb ew bg ebg</meta> makes sense, and
<img>egvw egwewbg</img>, too.

But that's not what you have done, is it? How can text go between img
tags? Or, even weirder, meta tags?


Oh!
that's not what y meant. What I meant is
<img bla blah></img>
<meta bla bla></meta>

make sense because it looks clear, but of course it's a matter of taste.

But<hr /> an <br /> is indeed better!

Sure is.


regards

Werner

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Werner Partner * Tel +49 2366 886606 * Fax: 886608
mailto:ka****@sonoptikon.de * http://www.sonoptikon.de
hören Sie Klassik: http://www.drmk.ch/
Jul 20 '05 #18

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.