By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,767 Members | 1,255 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,767 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Validation is invalid

P: n/a
Conclusion after sufficient research:

Almost none of the extant web pages are valid.

None of the really complex, most valuable web pages are valid.

Validated pages are invariably trivial (including yours -- I looked).

CSS does not require validation either of the HTML or the CSS.

Validation of my pages, before or after CSS'ing is impractical.

fergetit !

Mason C
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
11 Replies


P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
fergetit !

Mason C


Well, bye!
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:28:25 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
Conclusion after sufficient research:

Almost none of the extant web pages are valid.
And that means that validating is useless? Almost none of the extant
governments are not corrupt. Should governments be corrupt?
Validated pages are invariably trivial (including yours -- I looked).
w3c is trivial? Without that site there would be no WWW.
CSS does not require validation either of the HTML or the CSS.
CSS validation is a bit of a misnomer. And CSS must be correctly stated to
function.
Validation of my pages, before or after CSS'ing is impractical.
Impractical? How is it impractical to validate a page?
fergetit !


Oh, sorry. I forgot now.
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Mason A. Clark wrote:
Conclusion after sufficient research:
[...]
Validated pages are invariably trivial
Insufficient research.
fergetit !


Bye.
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 06:28:25 GMT, Mason A. Clark <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ>
wrote:
Conclusion after sufficient research:

Almost none of the extant web pages are valid.

None of the really complex, most valuable web pages are valid.

Validated pages are invariably trivial (including yours -- I looked).

CSS does not require validation either of the HTML or the CSS.

Validation of my pages, before or after CSS'ing is impractical.

fergetit !

Mason C

"My personal perception on this issue is that a wide majority of users
still do not have a lot of experience and understanding on coding
accordingly HTML and CSS. Otherwise there would be a lot more webpages
out there which would validate accordingly both their markup code and
css code: it's not the case for 99% of all indexed webpages according to
a W3C estimation." (DU dunclear in a recent post)

If 99% don't validate (or don't fully validate) something's very wrong.

What's wrong:

1. the standards are fluid
2. the browsers differ wildly
3. instruction is non-existent

Now, that last one may elicit some flames so here's
my micro-rant:

Not everyone with a web site is a professional programmer.
In fact, most are not. It's all very well to blister us kids who
just want top maintain a useful site, not learn esoteric code, but
the blisterers are jousting with windmills.

I can make a clever page look fine in IE6, N7, O7 and that
covers most of the users -- certainly those who bother to upgrade.

BUT, if I attach a DTD the page doesn't work in one or more
of those browsers. Being only a kid, I don't know which DTD to
use and the knowledge is buried deeply under a great pile...

Gotta get off the phone....

Mason C
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a

See? Here's my problem:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/ronreagan.html

It has fixed top and side bars -- nice.

It works fine in IE6.0 Netscape7.1 Opera 7.23

That may be sufficient for my purpose.

Every attempt to add a DTD at the top spoils it.

How'em I supposed to validate and fix things when
I can't even get started?

( Please ignore the content -- I'm not pushing it. My
simple, bare Template has some problem. )

Mason C fyi: http://masonc.home.netcom.com
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 05:27:37 GMT, Mason A. Clark <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ>
wrote:

See? Here's my problem:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/ronreagan.html

It has fixed top and side bars -- nice.

It works fine in IE6.0 Netscape7.1 Opera 7.23

That may be sufficient for my purpose.

Every attempt to add a DTD at the top spoils it.

How'em I supposed to validate and fix things when
I can't even get started?

( Please ignore the content -- I'm not pushing it. My
simple, bare Template has some problem. )

Mason C fyi: http://masonc.home.netcom.com


OK, I fixed my Template; fixed bars, scrolling text, no Reagan:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html

No -- NO -- html tables -- none ! (and no frames)
Now if I could add a DTD and validate, I might start go legit.
Then you'd be real nice to me.

Mason C

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
It seems "Mason A. Clark" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Validation of my pages, before or after CSS'ing is impractical.


I see the outpatients are out in force tonight.

--
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 #8

P: n/a
It seems "Mason A. Clark" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Now, that last one may elicit some flames


Hopefully everyone will realize we're being trolled and will
refrain.

--
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 #9

P: n/a
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:52:16 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:

...
Every attempt to add a DTD at the top spoils it.

How'em I supposed to validate and fix things when
I can't even get started?

...
OK, I fixed my Template; fixed bars, scrolling text, no Reagan:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html

No -- NO -- html tables -- none ! (and no frames)
Now if I could add a DTD and validate, I might start go legit.
Then you'd be real nice to me.


I see only little spacing differences when adding a
Standards-mode-inducing Doctype on type, and it would probably be possible
to work around the differences between Quirks mode and Standards mode
display.

See http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/doctype/ for some info on the
differences you see, especially this ection: "Box-sizing is based on the
IE/Windows border-box model in quirks mode".

If you use this Doctype, you'll stay in Quirks mode, which is probably
what you want for now:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark / 2004-02-15 04:19:
If 99% don't validate (or don't fully validate) something's very wrong.

What's wrong:

1. the standards are fluid
2. the browsers differ wildly
3. instruction is non-existent

Now, that last one may elicit some flames so here's
my micro-rant:

Not everyone with a web site is a professional programmer.
In fact, most are not. It's all very well to blister us kids who
just want top maintain a useful site, not learn esoteric code, but
the blisterers are jousting with windmills.

I can make a clever page look fine in IE6, N7, O7 and that
covers most of the users -- certainly those who bother to upgrade.


I think the difference is whether or not you want to make something
that "works" or something that's done correctly. I'd rather have
things done correctly, but in the same time, I must agree the fact
that doing things correctly can be more costly. (The opposite is
true sometimes, too.)

As long as the only thing that can go wrong in a document that
cannot be read (like some javascript/layer/object/embed trash the
web is half full of) the penalty of not succeeding doing it
correctly and resulting to "not work" isn't high enough to warrant
spending time to always do things correctly. If somebody's life
depended on it, making it techically perfect would matter, but I
haven't heard about such document. [Note that I'm speaking about the
document itself being technically perfect, not the contents.]

This is not too different from the things the software industry does
in general today. Take the most common web browser, MSIE, for
example. It's full of bugs and has had serious security problems and
still majority of the web citizens still insist using it. It's "good
enough" for the majority - not so for me.

So, I'd rather have perfect documents (web sites, word document's
that correctly use styles, etc. etc.) but if I cannot have perfect
document, *I rather have something instead of nothing*.

In the end, validating your documents is only one recommended step
making perfect documents. If you're happy with technically sub-par
document that just happens to be readable with some nowadays common
software, I guess that works for you.

--
Mikko
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 13:48:34 +0100, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 06:52:16 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:

..
Every attempt to add a DTD at the top spoils it.

How'em I supposed to validate and fix things when
I can't even get started?


..
OK, I fixed my Template; fixed bars, scrolling text, no Reagan:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html

No -- NO -- html tables -- none ! (and no frames)
Now if I could add a DTD and validate, I might start go legit.
Then you'd be real nice to me.


I see only little spacing differences when adding a
Standards-mode-inducing Doctype on type, and it would probably be possible
to work around the differences between Quirks mode and Standards mode
display.

See http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/doctype/ for some info on the
differences you see, especially this ection: "Box-sizing is based on the
IE/Windows border-box model in quirks mode".

If you use this Doctype, you'll stay in Quirks mode, which is probably
what you want for now:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen


Thank you! My problem was the append to the DTD:

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

which I guess puts it out of Quirks mode?

SO. I now have a VALID template, all CSS, no html tables,
using javascript "expression" in CSS to fix the top bar and
the side bar while the body scrolls -- very desirable for
many web pages but never seen by me except in frames:

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html

The CSS validator had some complaints but all are
manageable, except perhaps the "expression" use.

Trolling works. The remarks elicited have been very
helpful. Thanks to all of you (including you, Stan).

Mason C
Jul 20 '05 #12

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.