By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,645 Members | 1,226 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,645 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Browser version testing

P: n/a
I maintain an academic web site accessed regularly by schools without the
latest equipment. This means that Version 4 IE and NS browsers are frequent
visitors.

When I validate CSS and HTML, which versions and DOCTYPE should I test
against?

Thanks you,

Chris Hopkins
www.parthia.com
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
6 Replies


P: n/a
In article <bs************@ID-177935.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Charax wrote:
I maintain an academic web site accessed regularly by schools without the
latest equipment. This means that Version 4 IE and NS browsers are frequent
visitors.

When I validate CSS and HTML, which versions and DOCTYPE should I test
against?
I'm not sure whether you just used terms carelessly, or actually
have a major misunderstanding.

You should not (and should not need to) specify a DOCTYPE at
validation time. Rather, that DOCTYPE should be at the beginning of
your document. Which DOCTYPE should be in your document? The one
that describes the version of (X)HTML you're using.

For any new work, to reduce problems down the road, you should
specify HTML 4.01 Strict. There's a DOCTYPE for easy cut-and-paste
at http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...pe_declaration

Version-4 browsers should be able to copy just fine with HTML 4.01.
They may not implement all features -- and they will get some things
horribly wrong -- but the same would be true with other DOCTYPEs.
And by specifying HTML 4.01 Strict, you will be telling later
browsers not to emulate the bugs of earlier browsers.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Thanks, Stan. So I understand the answer is to use 4.01 strict even though I
am targeting version 4 browsers.

Now about the CSS. For version 4 browsers, should I be using CSS1 or CSS2?
Or is there a complex matrix of which CSS syntax is understood by those
browsers?

Cheers,

Chris Hopkins
www.parthia.com
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MP************************@news.odyssey.net.. .
In article <bs************@ID-177935.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Charax wrote:
I maintain an academic web site accessed regularly by schools without the
latest equipment. This means that Version 4 IE and NS browsers are frequentvisitors.

When I validate CSS and HTML, which versions and DOCTYPE should I test
against?
I'm not sure whether you just used terms carelessly, or actually
have a major misunderstanding.

You should not (and should not need to) specify a DOCTYPE at
validation time. Rather, that DOCTYPE should be at the beginning of
your document. Which DOCTYPE should be in your document? The one
that describes the version of (X)HTML you're using.

For any new work, to reduce problems down the road, you should
specify HTML 4.01 Strict. There's a DOCTYPE for easy cut-and-paste
at

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/...pe_declaration Version-4 browsers should be able to copy just fine with HTML 4.01.
They may not implement all features -- and they will get some things
horribly wrong -- but the same would be true with other DOCTYPEs.
And by specifying HTML 4.01 Strict, you will be telling later
browsers not to emulate the bugs of earlier browsers.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/


Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
In article <bs***********@ID-177935.news.uni-berlin.de> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Charax wrote:
Now about the CSS. For version 4 browsers, should I be using CSS1 or CSS2?
Or is there a complex matrix of which CSS syntax is understood by those
browsers?


Please do not post upside down
<http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm>. It is highly irritating
to a number of us, which means that it reduces your chances of
getting your question answered.

CSS2 pretty much includes CSS1, but both Netscape 4 and IE 4 do well
with some aspects of CSS1 and poorly with others. See
<http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/index.html> for extensive
details on quirks of browsers with CSS.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Tim
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:57:09 -0500,
"Charax" <ch******@ameritech.net> wrote:
Thanks, Stan. So I understand the answer is to use 4.01 strict even though I
am targeting version 4 browsers.
What do you mean by "version 4 browsers"? If you mean something like
IE4, or Netscape 4, then that's nothing to do with HTML 4.x.
Now about the CSS. For version 4 browsers, should I be using CSS1 or CSS2?
Or is there a complex matrix of which CSS syntax is understood by those
browsers?


No browsers understand all of CSS, and some have different ideas about
how to do the same sort of thing. And since there's no way to say that
some CSS should be regarded as being CSS 1 or CSS 2, there's little
point in deliberately doing something in an old way, particularly if
there's been changes to CSS.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
In article <uf********************************@4ax.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Tim wrote:
No browsers understand all of CSS, and some have different ideas about
how to do the same sort of thing. And since there's no way to say that
some CSS should be regarded as being CSS 1 or CSS 2, there's little
point in deliberately doing something in an old way, particularly if
there's been changes to CSS.


That is one view, basically "I don't care how it looks in anything
below Mozilla 1.5." It's an author's choice to make, but I don't
think it's one that most people would endorse.

Another view is, "If there's an old way and a new way to do
something, more browsers are likely to react as I wish to the old
way. I must think of the tradeoffs between old and new, not just
blindly say that 'new is better'."

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:57:09 -0500, "Charax" <ch******@ameritech.net>
wrote:
Thanks, Stan. So I understand the answer is to use 4.01 strict even though I
am targeting version 4 browsers.

Now about the CSS. For version 4 browsers, should I be using CSS1 or CSS2?
Or is there a complex matrix of which CSS syntax is understood by those
browsers?


It's pretty complex. Even parts of CSS1 are not supported at all
reliably. Given that not many people use NN4 / IE4 any more, it's
probably best to restrict yourself to a few simple colours and
backgrounds, or even hide all the CSS.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/netscape4.html may help a bit.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #7

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.