HTML compliance

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Re: HTML compliance

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> writes:
[color=blue]
> http://home.chello.no/~mgrsby/sgmlintr/sgmldec.htm[/color]

A new one, for me, at least. Thanks.
[color=blue]
> Of course most of the things discussed there as configurable (concrete
> syntax, document character set etc.) are already fixed for HTML.[/color]

The question always remains: just *how* are things supposed to be
'fixed'?

Here's another practical joke, originally in reply to a
'the-xhtml-doctype-requires-lower-case-tags' kind of query in an
'we-don't-discuss-this-here-but-you're-all-wrong-anyway' kind of mailing
list (know which I mean, nudge nudge, blink blink):

<http://validator.w3.or g/check?uri=http://sandbox.bednarz .nl%2Fsgml%2Fxm l%2Fxhtml%2Fuca se.html&ss=1>


--
| ) Più Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

[Howard Kaikow]

Re: HTML compliance

"Michael Winter" <M.Winter@bluey onder.co.invali d> wrote in message
news:opsihvi0j9 x13kvk@atlantis ...[color=blue]
> As my own aside, if the HTML specification is so incorrect on this matter,
> why hasn't it been updated in the last five years?[/color]

I've had a lot more experience than most readin/writing standards (see
http://www.standards.com/index.html?HowardKaikow and
http://www.standards.com/index.html?Standards) and I can fearlessky state
the following/

Most published standards, be they W3C or ISO or ANSO or ECMA are poorly
written and incorrect/ambiguous. Some are published even tho they contain
known egregious errors merely because ..., well, I won't go into te reasons.
From the perspective of a standards document, the HTML spec needs some work.

I haven't looked at the SGML standard in a while, my recollection is that
it was not written in a manner that would be easily understood by mere
mortals.

[Howard Kaikow]

Re: HTML compliance

Here's the output of the validator.


Markup Validation Service
v0.6.7
a.. Skip Navigation | Home
b.. About...
c.. News
d.. Docs
e.. Help & FAQ
f.. Feedback
g.. Link Checker
Jump To:
a.. Results
File: Billing status.htm
Encoding: utf-8
Doctype:
Errors: 4

No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.
I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the
valid sources for such information. Without encoding information it is
impossible to reliably validate the document. I'm falling back to the
"UTF-8" encoding and will attempt to perform the validation, but this is
likely to fail for all non-trivial documents.

So what should I do? Tell me more...

No DOCTYPE Found! Falling Back to HTML 4.01 Transitional
A DOCTYPE Declaration is mandatory for most current markup languages and
without one it is impossible to reliably validate this document. I am
falling back to "HTML 4.01 Transitional" and will attempt to validate the
document anyway, but this is very likely to produce spurious error messages
for most non-trivial documents.

So what should I do? Tell me more...

This page is not Valid !
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
parser.

1.. Line 1, column 0: no document type declaration; will parse without
validation

<title>Billin g status</title>

âo?

2.. Line 2, column 3: document type does not allow element "H2" here

<h2>Usage shown for 11/2004</h2>

The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed.
This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a
"style" element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two
elements that overlap (which is not allowed).

One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML
documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can
create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags
for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the
parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the
"body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported
error).

âo?

3.. Line 4, column 0: character data is not allowed here

This only covers a single month, and does not take

You have used character data somewhere it is not permitted to appear.
Mistakes that can cause this error include putting text directly in the body
of the document without wrapping it in a container element (such as a
<p>aragraph</p>) or forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters
such as "%" and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding
quotes).

âo?

4.. Line 6, column 3: document type does not allow element "BR" here

<br>

âo?

Feedback: The W3C Validator Team
Date: 2004/07/21 10:24:06
Copyright © 1994-2004 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C
liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your
interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member
privacy statements.

[Howard Kaikow]

Re: HTML compliance

Here's the output of the validator.


Markup Validation Service
v0.6.7
a.. Skip Navigation | Home
b.. About...
c.. News
d.. Docs
e.. Help & FAQ
f.. Feedback
g.. Link Checker
Jump To:
a.. Results
File: Billing status.htm
Encoding: utf-8
Doctype:
Errors: 4

No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.
I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the
valid sources for such information. Without encoding information it is
impossible to reliably validate the document. I'm falling back to the
"UTF-8" encoding and will attempt to perform the validation, but this is
likely to fail for all non-trivial documents.

So what should I do? Tell me more...

No DOCTYPE Found! Falling Back to HTML 4.01 Transitional
A DOCTYPE Declaration is mandatory for most current markup languages and
without one it is impossible to reliably validate this document. I am
falling back to "HTML 4.01 Transitional" and will attempt to validate the
document anyway, but this is very likely to produce spurious error messages
for most non-trivial documents.

So what should I do? Tell me more...

This page is not Valid !
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
parser.

1.. Line 1, column 0: no document type declaration; will parse without
validation

<title>Billin g status</title>

âo?

2.. Line 2, column 3: document type does not allow element "H2" here

<h2>Usage shown for 11/2004</h2>

The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed.
This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a
"style" element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two
elements that overlap (which is not allowed).

One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML
documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can
create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags
for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the
parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the
"body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported
error).

âo?

3.. Line 4, column 0: character data is not allowed here

This only covers a single month, and does not take

You have used character data somewhere it is not permitted to appear.
Mistakes that can cause this error include putting text directly in the body
of the document without wrapping it in a container element (such as a
<p>aragraph</p>) or forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters
such as "%" and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding
quotes).

âo?

4.. Line 6, column 3: document type does not allow element "BR" here

<br>

âo?

Feedback: The W3C Validator Team
Date: 2004/07/21 10:24:06
Copyright © 1994-2004 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C
liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your
interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member
privacy statements.

[Howard Kaikow]

Re: HTML compliance

Here's the output of the validator.


Markup Validation Service
v0.6.7
a.. Skip Navigation | Home
b.. About...
c.. News
d.. Docs
e.. Help & FAQ
f.. Feedback
g.. Link Checker
Jump To:
a.. Results
File: Billing status.htm
Encoding: utf-8
Doctype:
Errors: 4

No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.
I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the
valid sources for such information. Without encoding information it is
impossible to reliably validate the document. I'm falling back to the
"UTF-8" encoding and will attempt to perform the validation, but this is
likely to fail for all non-trivial documents.

So what should I do? Tell me more...

No DOCTYPE Found! Falling Back to HTML 4.01 Transitional
A DOCTYPE Declaration is mandatory for most current markup languages and
without one it is impossible to reliably validate this document. I am
falling back to "HTML 4.01 Transitional" and will attempt to validate the
document anyway, but this is very likely to produce spurious error messages
for most non-trivial documents.

So what should I do? Tell me more...

This page is not Valid !
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML
parser.

1.. Line 1, column 0: no document type declaration; will parse without
validation

<title>Billin g status</title>

âo?

2.. Line 2, column 3: document type does not allow element "H2" here

<h2>Usage shown for 11/2004</h2>

The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed.
This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a
"style" element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two
elements that overlap (which is not allowed).

One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML
documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can
create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags
for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the
parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the
"body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported
error).

âo?

3.. Line 4, column 0: character data is not allowed here

This only covers a single month, and does not take

You have used character data somewhere it is not permitted to appear.
Mistakes that can cause this error include putting text directly in the body
of the document without wrapping it in a container element (such as a
<p>aragraph</p>) or forgetting to quote an attribute value (where characters
such as "%" and "/" are common, but cannot appear without surrounding
quotes).

âo?

4.. Line 6, column 3: document type does not allow element "BR" here

<br>

âo?

Feedback: The W3C Validator Team
Date: 2004/07/21 10:24:06
Copyright © 1994-2004 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C
liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your
interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member
privacy statements.

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: HTML compliance

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 19:38:02 -0500, Howard Kaikow <kaikow@standar ds.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Here's the output of the validator.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Markup Validation Service[/color]

<snip >4kB of shit that should have been a link of some sort>

f**k you. a URL would have been more than sufficient. Some quoted text is
also nice so one would at least know why you put that blahblah of >4kB in
a post.

plonk


--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html >
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Re: HTML compliance

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> f**k you.[/color]

That's a generous but often overrated and not even trustworthy offer
within Usenet (ask brucie in case of any doubts).
[color=blue]
> plonk[/color]

That sounds kinky enough for me.


--
| ) Più Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: HTML compliance

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 02:06:02 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz
<bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> writes:
>[color=green]
>> f**k you.[/color]
>
> That's a generous but often overrated and not even trustworthy offer
> within Usenet (ask brucie in case of any doubts).
>[color=green]
>> plonk[/color]
>
> That sounds kinky enough for me.
>[/color]

Sorry Eric. I just get mad at stupidity sometimes. That just happend. And
no, you cannot take me up on any supposed offer from previous posts in
this thread or any other thread. :-D



--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html >
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

[Steve Pugh]

Re: HTML compliance

"Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standar ds.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>"Steve Pugh" <steve@pugh.net > wrote in message
>news:0fn3r0djd svgho5ovcjini2v 5c9d3j5cfr@4ax. com...[color=green]
>> "Howard Kaikow" <kaikow@standar ds.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >0. A DOCTYPE tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by
>> >clause 7.1.[/color]
>>
>> Yes.
>>[color=darkred]
>> >1. An HTML tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
>> >7.1.[/color]
>>
>> No. See:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-HTML
>> Start tag: optional, End tag: optional
>>[color=darkred]
>> >2. A HEAD tag is required, or not. I believe this is required by clause
>> >7.1, but I recall seeing a statememnt somewhere that HEAD need not be
>> >included if BODY is included.[/color]
>>
>> No. See:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-HEAD
>> Start tag: optional, End tag: optional
>>[color=darkred]
>> >3. A BODY tag is required, or not, ignoring FRAMESET For this discussion,[/color]
>>
>> No. See:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#edef-BODY
>> Start tag: optional, End tag: optional[/color]
>
>
>So, only the DOCTYPE is required.[/color]

The doctype, the title and some content (and if the doctype is strict
then the content must be in a block level container). Everything else
is implied by the presence of these and hence does not need to be
explicitly included. That's what everyone in this thread has been
telling you.

Steve

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: HTML compliance

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > syntax, document character set etc.) are already fixed for HTML.[/color]
>
> The question always remains: just *how* are things supposed to be
> 'fixed'?[/color]

It's a logical puzzle, isn't it? Because the "SGML Declaration" is
supposed to be incorporated implicitly for HTML; but there are
different declarations for difference versions of HTML, and one only
knows what version of HTML is involved when one has seen the DOCTYPE.
But (in SGML terms) the DOCTYPE can't be interpreted until the
Declaration has been processed.
[color=blue]
> Here's another practical joke,[/color]

As you say, it's a nice joke...

all the best

[Nick Kew]

Re: HTML compliance

In article <m31xe5vb5b.fsf @email.bednarz. nl>,
Eric B. Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> writes:
[color=blue]
> Here's another practical joke, originally in reply to a
> 'the-xhtml-doctype-requires-lower-case-tags' kind of query in an
> 'we-don't-discuss-this-here-but-you're-all-wrong-anyway' kind of mailing
> list (know which I mean, nudge nudge, blink blink):
>
> <http://validator.w3.or g/check?uri=http://sandbox.bednarz .nl%2Fsgml%2Fxm l%2Fxhtml%2Fuca se.html&ss=1>[/color]

LOL - thanks for that! But why the comment (no problem viewing source here)?

You are Hixie and ICMFP:-)

--
Nick Kew

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Re: HTML compliance

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 01:31:12 +0100, Eric B. Bednarz
<bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
[...][color=blue]
>Here's another practical joke...[/color]
[color=blue]
><http://validator.w3.or g/check?uri=http://sandbox.bednarz .nl%2Fsgml%2Fxm l%2Fxhtml%2Fuca se.html&ss=1>[/color]

Ha! That's a good one, spot on :-)

--
Rex

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Re: HTML compliance

nick@hugin.webt hing.com (Nick Kew) writes:
[color=blue]
> Eric B. Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> writes:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> <http://validator.w3.or g/check?uri=http://sandbox.bednarz .nl%2Fsgml%2Fxm l%2Fxhtml%2Fuca se.html&ss=1>[/color]
>
> LOL - thanks for that! But why the comment (no problem viewing source here)?[/color]

Admittedly, my Mozilla installation is quite old; when I view source the
generic identifiers are lowercase. View source is generally bad, since
some kind of 'normalisation' appears already to have happened (also some
shorthand features are not displayed 'as is').

Of course that could be fixed in newer versions; I'll check that later.


--
| ) Più Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/

[Henri Sivonen]

Re: HTML compliance

In article <nl8b82-qe4.ln1@hugin.w ebthing.com>,
nick@hugin.webt hing.com (Nick Kew) wrote:
[color=blue]
> You are Hixie and ICMFP:-)[/color]

I thought his remarks resembled more those of Arjun Ray than Hixie. :-)

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi

http://iki.fi/hsivonen/

Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: HTML compliance

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Nick Kew wrote:
[color=blue]
> You are Hixie and ICMFP:-)[/color]

Just in case our international readers are confused by this
initialism, Google suggests:

http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index.php/And_I_claim_my_five_pounds

(they don't seem to have been able to get their charset right,
though).

Five pounds would have been a considerable sum of money when the
advertising stunt was introduced.


(...We now return you to our normal markup...)