here's what I'm using for my PHP files:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
1) Is that standard, and the only way it should be?
2) with that meta tag declaring utf-8, is it imperative that my
MySQL tables also use utf-8? (I have them at latin 1 now.)
23  1642 
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
I also just noticed that Dream Weaver doesn't even offer Latin 1 as an
option for the default encoding - so maybe it is DW that is wacky.
On further checking, DW offers "Western European" as an option,
and if I choose that then ISO-8859-1 is what actually gets
inserted into the (mostly useless) meta-tag. So that makes 3
synonyms for the same charset.
Also, after thinking a bit, the fact that the output originates
dynamically as php shouldn't matter, right? If I were to download
my php page, save the source as *.html, and then publish that
file as *.html, then the end result is the same - as far as
DOCTYPE goes.
So this was really an HTML question, independent of whether that
the output originated as php.
Just because the validator doesn't catch all errors doesn't mean you
These are NOT errors but valid SGML. They are just not valid XML in
contrast to the part of HTML that is widely known.
Only if you use a schema validator. The W3 validator is SGML-based,
which is not appropriate for validating X(HT)ML.
No. But it is appropriate to validate HTML. Because HTML is SGML.
Thats what I said: HTML supports much more than you want to use. But if
you want to use a subset, use the official one, that is based on XML: XHTML.
Jonas Werres wrote:
>Just because the validator doesn't catch all errors doesn't mean you
These are NOT errors but valid SGML. They are just not valid XML in
contrast to the part of HTML that is widely known.
If they're not errors, then what's the problem?
And browsers do understand that a lot better than they do XHTML.
But you also ignore the rest of my points. How convenient.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
If they're not errors, then what's the problem?
The problem is the one I mentionend before and you asked for: Nobody
will write that on purpose.
And browsers do understand that a lot better than they do XHTML.
Do you have an example? The only issue I know is the MIME-type thing
with IE.
But you also ignore the rest of my points. How convenient.
Ok, what was there? The W3C. Yes, I ignored that. After a look into the
source of http://www.w3.org/.
Jonas Werres wrote:
>Only if you use a schema validator. The W3 validator is SGML-based,
which is not appropriate for validating X(HT)ML.
do online validators sell/give URLs to google, etc?
Jonas Werres wrote:
>If they're not errors, then what's the problem?
The problem is the one I mentionend before and you asked for: Nobody
will write that on purpose.
>And browsers do understand that a lot better than they do XHTML.
Do you have an example? The only issue I know is the MIME-type thing
with IE.
Google for xhmtl and "internet explorer". You'll find all kinds of
stuff about it.
>But you also ignore the rest of my points. How convenient.
Ok, what was there? The W3C. Yes, I ignored that. After a look into the
source of http://www.w3.org/.
So? They're the ones setting the recommendations. That's what most of
the rest of us follow - including the browser developers. And if they
say XHTML isn't going anywhere soon, browser developers won't be
spending a lot of time supporting it.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry schrieb:
Jonas Werres wrote:
>>Only if you use a schema validator. The W3 validator is SGML-based,
which is not appropriate for validating X(HT)ML.
do online validators sell/give URLs to google, etc?
No idea, but I don't think, the W3C one does that.
Why do you ask?
So? They're the ones setting the recommendations. That's what most of
the rest of us follow - including the browser developers. And if they
say XHTML isn't going anywhere soon, browser developers won't be
spending a lot of time supporting it.
Did you have a look at their website?
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
What can you say when even W3C doesn't recommend it?
I would be very interested in where the W3C says that - I haven't been
able to find anything like that. Most of the info I'm able to find seems
to point the other way - such as: http://www.webstandards.org/learn/ar...skw3c/oct2003/
Of course, that's over 4 years old - and that's also the case with the
info that I find...
Jonas Werres wrote:
>So? They're the ones setting the recommendations. That's what most
of the rest of us follow - including the browser developers. And if
they say XHTML isn't going anywhere soon, browser developers won't be
spending a lot of time supporting it.
Did you have a look at their website?
Sure. I go there regularly. So what?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Tony wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
What can you say when even W3C doesn't recommend it?
I would be very interested in where the W3C says that - I haven't been
able to find anything like that. Most of the info I'm able to find seems
to point the other way - such as:
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/ar...skw3c/oct2003/
Of course, that's over 4 years old - and that's also the case with the
info that I find...
That's right - it's over 4 years old. Check the www.w3c.org site. I
don't have the link handy, but they are now pushing towards HTML 5.0
instead of a new version of XHTML.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Sure. I go there regularly. So what?
>
It is XHTML? So obviously at least they do not recommend NOT to use it.
That's right - it's over 4 years old. Check the www.w3c.org site. I
don't have the link handy, but they are now pushing towards HTML 5.0
instead of a new version of XHTML.
Yeah ... HTML 5... Already had a look at THAT?
..oO(Dikkie Dik)
>By the way, if you want a nice introduction on the matter, here's a good
start:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Unicode.html
... and beware of onions ;) There is one thing I strongly disagree with
the above site: the remark that character encodings would be easy. They
are not. Especially if you take some quirky behaviours of Windows and
MySQL into account.
IMHO it _can_ be easy - you just have to do it consistently.
With UTF-8 you have to make sure that
* your data is stored as UTF-8 in the DB
* correctly transfered to your script (SET NAMES utf8)
* correctly transfered to the browser (header())
In short: UTF-8 all the way from the source to the reader.
Micha
Jonas Werres wrote:
>Sure. I go there regularly. So what?
It is XHTML? So obviously at least they do not recommend NOT to use it.
What does that prove?. They just haven't rewritten their website since
it became obvious XHTML isn't going anywhere.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jonas Werres wrote:
>That's right - it's over 4 years old. Check the www.w3c.org site. I
don't have the link handy, but they are now pushing towards HTML 5.0
instead of a new version of XHTML.
Yeah ... HTML 5... Already had a look at THAT?
Just preliminary specs is all. Looks ok to me.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Tony wrote:
>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
What can you say when even W3C doesn't recommend it?
I would be very interested in where the W3C says that - I haven't been
able to find anything like that. Most of the info I'm able to find
seems to point the other way - such as:
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/ar...skw3c/oct2003/
Of course, that's over 4 years old - and that's also the case with the
info that I find...
That's right - it's over 4 years old. Check the www.w3c.org site. I
don't have the link handy, but they are now pushing towards HTML 5.0
instead of a new version of XHTML.
I did check out that site, quite a bit. I found nothing about them
recommending HTML over XHTML, or even suggesting that you don't use
XHTML. According to everything I read they are concurrently developing a
new XHTML specification as well as HTML 5.
I am willing to accept evidence to the contrary, but without evidence, I
can't accept that the W3C does not recommend XHTML.
I was really hoping you had that link - it would have helped me in
certain discussions I have been having at work.
Tony wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>Tony wrote:
>>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
What can you say when even W3C doesn't recommend it?
I would be very interested in where the W3C says that - I haven't
been able to find anything like that. Most of the info I'm able to
find seems to point the other way - such as:
http://www.webstandards.org/learn/ar...skw3c/oct2003/
Of course, that's over 4 years old - and that's also the case with
the info that I find...
That's right - it's over 4 years old. Check the www.w3c.org site. I
don't have the link handy, but they are now pushing towards HTML 5.0
instead of a new version of XHTML.
I did check out that site, quite a bit. I found nothing about them
recommending HTML over XHTML, or even suggesting that you don't use
XHTML. According to everything I read they are concurrently developing a
new XHTML specification as well as HTML 5.
I am willing to accept evidence to the contrary, but without evidence, I
can't accept that the W3C does not recommend XHTML.
I was really hoping you had that link - it would have helped me in
certain discussions I have been having at work.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about your discussions at work.
I'll look up the link sometime when I have the time. Right now I'm too
busy to do your work for you.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Tony wrote:
>I was really hoping you had that link - it would have helped me in
certain discussions I have been having at work.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about your discussions at work.
I'll look up the link sometime when I have the time. Right now I'm too
busy to do your work for you.
A bit touchy, aren't we?
I was trying to point out that I wasn't challenging you. Instead I was
hoping you were right, and had ready information to back up your claim.
It appears that you don't.
I have been researching the XHTML vs HTMML debate for quite some time,
and I have never found a definitive statement by an organization like
W3C such as you claim they made.
Your response, honestly, leaves me questioning your credibility on this
claim. And it gives me a better understanding of how you seem to have
developed such a following as nully & crowd. I've tried to keep our
discussions reasonably friendly - apparently that doesn't work both ways.
Tony wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>Tony wrote:
>>I was really hoping you had that link - it would have helped me in
certain discussions I have been having at work.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about your discussions at work.
I'll look up the link sometime when I have the time. Right now I'm
too busy to do your work for you.
A bit touchy, aren't we?
I was trying to point out that I wasn't challenging you. Instead I was
hoping you were right, and had ready information to back up your claim.
It appears that you don't.
I have been researching the XHTML vs HTMML debate for quite some time,
and I have never found a definitive statement by an organization like
W3C such as you claim they made.
Your response, honestly, leaves me questioning your credibility on this
claim. And it gives me a better understanding of how you seem to have
developed such a following as nully & crowd. I've tried to keep our
discussions reasonably friendly - apparently that doesn't work both ways.
No, I'm just getting tired of the argument. You can google as well as I
can, and you can find the problems with using XHTML and browsers such as
IE as well as I can.
Go ahead and use XHTML if you want. You'll lose customers because their
browsers don't display it correctly, but who cares? I sure don't.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
==================
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Tony wrote:
>
No, I'm just getting tired of the argument. You can google as well as I
can, and you can find the problems with using XHTML and browsers such as
IE as well as I can.
I have done this. I have seen plenty of discussion on the matter. I have
not seen a statement by the W3C such as you claimed they made. I am
specifically addressing that claim.
Tony wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>Tony wrote:
>>
No, I'm just getting tired of the argument. You can google as well as
I can, and you can find the problems with using XHTML and browsers
such as IE as well as I can.
I have done this. I have seen plenty of discussion on the matter. I have
not seen a statement by the W3C such as you claimed they made. I am
specifically addressing that claim.
No, you continue to argue with the answers. And I'm not engaging any
longer.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp. js*******@attglobal.net
================== This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: CMAR |
last post by:
I create my website using Front Page 2000. I notice that none of my pages
have a DocType statement at the top.
I have read that if you want IE6 to use "Standards mode" rather than the
"Quirks...
|
by: Patrick |
last post by:
Hi
I am fairly new to CSS and the web.I am trying to build a site more to
practice my skills than for the site itself.
I have been focusing on CSS and try my best to make it work in I.E
6.0,...
|
by: DartmanX |
last post by:
I doubt this is possible, but I want to ask, just in case it is.
I have a project going using Google Maps. This project spits out an
HTML page template for people to post to their website and...
|
by: Viken Karaguesian |
last post by:
Hello all,
I'm somewhat of a newbie to webscripting. I've made a couple of websites in
the past with WYSIWYG software, but now I'm much more interested in manual
scripting. I have some...
|
by: PapaRandy |
last post by:
Hello,
I am trying to validate the following .py webpage as HTML (through
W3C).
I put:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
print "Content-type:...
|
by: Jim Michaels |
last post by:
I can't get any "universal" code working that tries to detect whether the
document it's in is xhtml or html.
I found this, which tells me I have a hill to climb with no equipment....
|
by: Rolf Welskes |
last post by:
Hello,
if I have for example:
<table style="width: 100%; height: 100%;" border="1">
<tr>
<td style="width: 100px">k
</td>
<td style="width: 100px">k
</td>
</tr>
|
by: drhowarddrfine |
last post by:
The Doctype or DTD
Many coders get confused by all the talk of doctypes and how they affect browsers and the display of their web pages. This article will get right to the point about doctypes...
|
by: rfr |
last post by:
When I add a transitional doctype to the weather page on my community
website, I loose certain Js scripts, but not all of them.
This puzzles me.
The main menu is powered by a js script and...
|
by: WT |
last post by:
Hello,
I am searching for a way to generate automatically from codebehind the
<!Doctype....for asp.net pages using .net 3.5 c# and vs2008.
Subidiary question: if I do a server transfert in my...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
| |
