HTML validation

[howa]

Is it true that if my XHTML is conforming to the w3c XHTML DTD, my
XHTML is validated and no need to run the HTML validation hosted on
w3c web page?

Thanks.

[Martin Honnen]

Re: HTML validation

howa wrote:

Is it true that if my XHTML is conforming to the w3c XHTML DTD, my
XHTML is validated and no need to run the HTML validation hosted on
w3c web page?

I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking whether the
browser validates your XHTML? No, browsers like IE or Mozilla certainly
don't do that.

--

Martin Honnen

http://JavaScript.FAQTs.com/

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: HTML validation

howa wrote:

Is it true that if my XHTML is conforming to the w3c XHTML DTD, my
XHTML is validated and no need to run the HTML validation hosted on
w3c web page?

You won't know if it is 'conforming' until you validate it. ;-)

That said, why are you using XHTML, when the 'most popular browser'
doesn't recognize it? (That would be IE, of course.) You will have
best luck if you write with HTML 4.01 Strict.

http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/test/xhtml.php

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: HTML validation

howa wrote:

Is it true that if my XHTML is conforming to the w3c XHTML DTD, my
XHTML is validated and no need to run the HTML validation hosted on
w3c web page?

The point of running the validation on the W3C site is to find out
*whether* your XHTML is conforming (presupposing that you *want* to know
whether it is). If you already *know* that it is, why would you be
testing it to find out *whether* it is? Conversely, if you haven't run
it through a validator, how do you know it's valid?

[Andy Mabbett]

Re: HTML validation

In message
<f55f0b78-adf6-4a99-9289-401812f48bcb@u1 0g2000prn.googl egroups.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesm iths.comwrites

>XHTML 1.0 isn't usable on the web, because IE won't work with it.

As a matter of interest: does that still apply with IE8?

--
Andy Mabbett
Says "NO! to compulsory UK ID Cards": <http://www.no2id.net/>
and: "Free Our Data": <http://www.freeourdata .org.uk>
(both also on Facebook)

[C A Upsdell]

Re: HTML validation

Andy Dingley wrote:

XHTML 1.0 isn't usable on the web, because IE won't work with it.

B---S---

[dorayme]

Re: HTML validation

In article <fs1kss$272$1@r egistered.motza rella.org>,
C A Upsdell <cupsdell@upsde ll.invalidwrote :

Andy Dingley wrote:

XHTML 1.0 isn't usable on the web, because IE won't work with it.

>
B---S---

Not really.

(Have you noticed, C A, that I have selected you to practice what
I am bad at, namely brevity. Are you saying something like "I
should be so lucky"? <g>)

--
dorayme

[rf]

Re: HTML validation


"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell@upsde ll.invalidwrote in message
news:fs1kss$272 $1@registered.m otzarella.org.. .

Andy Dingley wrote:

>XHTML 1.0 isn't usable on the web, because IE won't work with it.

>
B---S---

This is discussed somewhere at least once a week.

Feed XHTML to IE (any version) properly as 'application/xhtml+xml' and
admire how it politely asks you if you want to download it. That is not
"working with it" IMHO.

Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects it
to HTML. That is also not "working with it".

--
Richard.

[dorayme]

Re: HTML validation

In article <eJZEj.1206$n8. 286@news-server.bigpond. net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com wrote:

Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects it
to HTML. That is also not "working with it".

Perhaps that is a teensy weensy bit harsh rf? Surely it is reaching an
accommodation with it and so in a sense it is working with it.

It is an interesting social problem how come so many people use the
xhtml doctype when there is so little point. It got some press and off
it went like Britney...

--
dorayme

[rf]

Re: HTML validation


"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in message
news:doraymeRid This-8DAB16.17344722 032008@news-vip.optusnet.co m.au...

In article <eJZEj.1206$n8. 286@news-server.bigpond. net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com wrote:
>

>Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects
>it
>to HTML. That is also not "working with it".

>
Perhaps that is a teensy weensy bit harsh rf? Surely it is reaching an
accommodation with it and so in a sense it is working with it.

How is converting it to HTML "working with it"? Why serve XHTML to a browser
(with any mime type) when you *know* the browser going to convert it to
HTML, and possibly make a mistake in its error correction?

It is an interesting social problem how come so many people use the
xhtml doctype when there is so little point. It got some press and off
it went like Britney...

Why do so many people still use HTML comments inside a script element when
the only reason to do so was a bug in one single release of IIRC netscape 3
which only lasted for a few weeks anyway?

Because most of the population are sheep, blindly following the one in front
of them, unable to lift their head up a bit to have a real look around.

--
Richard.

[dorayme]

Re: HTML validation

In article <nG3Fj.1330$n8. 1027@news-server.bigpond. net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com wrote:

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in message
news:doraymeRid This-8DAB16.17344722 032008@news-vip.optusnet.co m.au...

In article <eJZEj.1206$n8. 286@news-server.bigpond. net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com wrote:

Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects
it
to HTML. That is also not "working with it".

Perhaps that is a teensy weensy bit harsh rf? Surely it is reaching an
accommodation with it and so in a sense it is working with it.

>
How is converting it to HTML "working with it"?

By accommodating it! Now we are going in circles. Actually, I have no
argument with you, I know what you mean. It cannot take advantage of
anything that the doc "unconverte d" has to offer. You are just
momentarily more furious about it than I am.

It is an interesting social problem how come so many people use the
xhtml doctype when there is so little point. It got some press and off
it went like Britney...

>
Why do so many people still use HTML comments inside a script element when
the only reason to do so was a bug in one single release of IIRC netscape 3
which only lasted for a few weeks anyway?
>
Because most of the population are sheep, blindly following the one in front
of them, unable to lift their head up a bit to have a real look around.

Ah yes, sheep... sheep? Sheep! New Zealand!

--
dorayme

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: HTML validation

dorayme wrote:

In article <nG3Fj.1330$n8. 1027@news-server.bigpond. net.au>,
"rf" <rf@invalid.com wrote:
>

>"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis @optusnet.com.a uwrote in message
>news:doraymeRi dThis-8DAB16.17344722 032008@news-vip.optusnet.co m.au...

>>In article <eJZEj.1206$n8. 286@news-server.bigpond. net.au>,
>>"rf" <rf@invalid.com wrote:
>>>
>>>Serve XHTML to IE as "text/html" and it happily tag soup error corrects
>>>it
>>>to HTML. That is also not "working with it".
>>Perhaps that is a teensy weensy bit harsh rf? Surely it is reaching an
>>accommodati on with it and so in a sense it is working with it.

>How is converting it to HTML "working with it"?

>
By accommodating it! Now we are going in circles. Actually, I have no
argument with you, I know what you mean. It cannot take advantage of
anything that the doc "unconverte d" has to offer. You are just
momentarily more furious about it than I am.
>

>>It is an interesting social problem how come so many people use the
>>xhtml doctype when there is so little point. It got some press and off
>>it went like Britney...

>Why do so many people still use HTML comments inside a script element when
>the only reason to do so was a bug in one single release of IIRC netscape 3
>which only lasted for a few weeks anyway?
>>
>Because most of the population are sheep, blindly following the one in front
>of them, unable to lift their head up a bit to have a real look around.

>
Ah yes, sheep... sheep? Sheep! New Zealand!
>

What, finger pointing? Australia is plenty sheepish, with all those
"sheep stations" (I always picture sheep in business suits on the
railway platform looking at their watches, waiting impatiently for the
8:06) so far away from anything that the children have their entire
education and social life by radio.

[dorayme]

Re: HTML validation

In article <64kjisF1grdukU 1@mid.individua l.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .netwrote:

Ah yes, sheep... sheep? Sheep! New Zealand!

What, finger pointing?

No no... look Harlan, it would be indelicate of me to explain this
matter so publicly. er... it is a sort of DISGUSTING oz in-joke about
our friends across the Tasman.

I cannot go into it. Except perhaps to refer you to:

http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/nzCabinetMinister.html

--
dorayme

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: HTML validation

dorayme wrote:

In article <64kjisF1grdukU 1@mid.individua l.net>,
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.rem ovethis@comcast .netwrote:
>

>>Ah yes, sheep... sheep? Sheep! New Zealand!
>>>

>What, finger pointing?

>
No no... look Harlan, it would be indelicate of me to explain this
matter so publicly. er... it is a sort of DISGUSTING oz in-joke about
our friends across the Tasman.
>
I cannot go into it. Except perhaps to refer you to:
>

http://dorayme.150m.com/jokes/nzCabinetMinister.html

>

Oh, baa-a-a-a!

[Holger Jeromin]

Re: HTML validation

Andy Mabbett schrieb am 22.03.2008 01:10:

>XHTML 1.0 isn't usable on the web, because IE won't work with it.

As a matter of interest: does that still apply with IE8?

yes

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Holger Jeromin