<body></body> is invalid html 4 strict?

**Stanimir Stamenkov** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:25:02 -0700 (PDT), /Xah/:

Here's a interesting case of invalid html 4 strict file.
>
In summary, if you have <body></bodywithout any content, the file
would be invalid under html 4 strict. Valid if html 4 lose.

Yes, it is correct according to the Strict
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/dtd.html>:

>
<!ELEMENT BODY O O (%block;|SCRIPT )+ +(INS|DEL) -- document body -->

and Transitional <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/sgml/loosedtd.html>:

>
<!ELEMENT BODY O O (%flow;)* +(INS|DEL) -- document body -->

document type definitions.

--
Stanimir

**Lance Manyon** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Xah wrote:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/
TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;charset=ut f-8">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
</body>
</html>

Hi Xah. For it to validate, you have to put something in the
<title></title>.

Hope you're well,
Ian
--
It is better to have loafed and lost than
never to have loafed at all. (James Thurber)

Blog nicht gefunden.

http://rastallian.blogspot.com/

Blogger ist ein Veröffentlichungs-Tool von Google, mit dem du ganz einfach deine Gedanken der Welt mitteilen kannst. Mit Blogger kannst du problemlos Texte, Fotos und Videos in deinem persönlichen Blog oder deinem Team-Blog veröffentlichen.

**Jukka K. Korpela** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Scripsit Lance Manyon:

For it to validate, you have to put something in the
<title></title>.

No you don't. (Of course, a title element with empty content is a bad
idea, but that has nothing to do with validation.)

Next time, considering at least testing your advice before posting it.
(Anyone who can read DTDs and therefore give informed advice on
validation can immediately see that your advice is wrong, of course.)

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

**reporter** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

On Jun 21, 12:43 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

Scripsit Lance Manyon:
>

For it to validate, you have to put something in the
<title></title>.

>
No you don't. (Of course, a title element with empty content is a bad
idea, but that has nothing to do with validation.)
>
Next time, considering at least testing your advice before posting it.
(Anyone who can read DTDs and therefore give informed advice on
validation can immediately see that your advice is wrong, of course.)
>
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

This post could have been more diplomatic.

**Jukka K. Korpela** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Scripsit reporter:

[...]

>--
>Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

>
This post could have been more diplomatic.

Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which
wasn't worth sending even by e-mail. Since you use a fake name, I expect
your e-mail address to be potentially fake anyway, so I'm not sending
this personal message by e-mail - but I have a good reason.

If you don't know the elements of Usenet conduct, you should refrain
from giving advice on posting in public. Besides, these groups aren't
about diplomacy, and clueless technical advice does not deserve any
diplomatic moves.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

**Chris F.A. Johnson** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

On 2008-06-21, Xah wrote:

Here's a interesting case of invalid html 4 strict file.
>
In summary, if you have <body></bodywithout any content, the file
would be invalid under html 4 strict. Valid if html 4 lose.
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/
TR/html4/strict.dtd">
><html>
><head>
><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html;charset=ut f-8">
><title></title>
></head>
><body>
></body>
></html>

The minimum valid page is:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<title></title>
<p>

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
=============== =============== =============== =============== =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

**Jukka K. Korpela** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Scripsit Chris F.A. Johnson:

The minimum valid page is:
>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<title></title>
<p>

Not really. You can change
<title></title>
to
<title//
and still keep it valid.

Kids, don't do this at home, or on the www.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

**reporter** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

On Jun 21, 1:43 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

Scripsit reporter:
>
[...]
>

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

>

This post could have been more diplomatic.

>
Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which
wasn't worth sending even by e-mail. Since you use a fake name, I expect
your e-mail address to be potentially fake anyway, so I'm not sending
this personal message by e-mail - but I have a good reason.
>
If you don't know the elements of Usenet conduct, you should refrain
from giving advice on posting in public. Besides, these groups aren't
about diplomacy, and clueless technical advice does not deserve any
diplomatic moves.
>
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Perhaps I was wrong. YOU could not have been more diplomatic.

**jACK** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Jukka

If you spent as much time trying to help people here as you do with
your rude messages, and correcting the questions they ask, the rest
wouldn't have to help as much.

Check your postings. See just how few of them really help anyone.

Don't even talk about Usenet conduct.

Jack

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 21:43:38 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jkorpela@cs.tu t.fiwrote:

>Scripsit reporter:
>
>[...]

>>--
>>Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

>>
>This post could have been more diplomatic.

>
>Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
>to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which
>wasn't worth sending even by e-mail. Since you use a fake name, I expect
>your e-mail address to be potentially fake anyway, so I'm not sending
>this personal message by e-mail - but I have a good reason.
>
>If you don't know the elements of Usenet conduct, you should refrain
>from giving advice on posting in public. Besides, these groups aren't
>about diplomacy, and clueless technical advice does not deserve any
>diplomatic moves.

**Harlan Messinger** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Scripsit reporter:
>
[...]

>>--
>>Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

>>
>This post could have been more diplomatic.

>
Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which
wasn't worth sending even by e-mail. Since you use a fake name, I expect
your e-mail address to be potentially fake anyway, so I'm not sending
this personal message by e-mail - but I have a good reason.
>
If you don't know the elements of Usenet conduct, you should refrain
from giving advice on posting in public. Besides, these groups aren't
about diplomacy,

*Life* is about diplomacy. About *etiquette*. I wonder how such a
stickler for *netiquette* such as yourself, who demands it at all cost
from everyone who participates on Usenet, has so thoroughly exempted
himself from its encompassing and millennia-older concern, etiquette,
which applies to anyone who participates in interaction with other
people. To be all consumed by netiquette but oblivious to
etiquette--it's hard to get more clueless than that.

and clueless technical advice does not deserve any
diplomatic moves.
>

**reporter** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Hey Jukka . . .

The tribe has spoken!

**Jukka K. Korpela** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Scripsit Harlan Messinger:

*Life* is about diplomacy.

I like your pointless babbling more than your attempts to look
philosophical (using the well-known formula of writing "Life is" and
appending random words).

>and clueless technical advice does not deserve any
>diplomatic moves.

You apparently decided to resist the temptation to make any comment on
this remotely on-topic note, despite your quoting it. That's a common
way to collect some additional bogosity points.

Regarding the original question about a body element with empty content
being valid in HTML 4 Strict, the correct answer had been given when a
person had to post a completely wrong answer. This reflected the fact
that he does not understand what validity is (in the HTML context) at
all but just made a wild guess.

Nobody needs such guessing any more than your attacks at a person who
points out the bogosity. If you think that the incorrectness and grossly
misleading nature of a post should be given in a manner that meets your
definition of diplomacy, you can do that as often as you like. Be my
guest. But you are just a noise-maker if you say nothing of the kind but
instead just say that someone wasn't diplomatic to your taste, in a
matter where there is no need for diplomacy.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

**Jim Moe** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

On 06/21/08 03:26 pm, reporter wrote:

>Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

>>

This post could have been more diplomatic.

>>
>Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
>to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which [...]

>
Perhaps I was wrong. YOU could not have been more diplomatic.

And you persist on wasting my time by not trimming you posts. You seem a
bit on the slow-learning side.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

**reporter** · Jun 27 '08, 07:16 PM

Re: <body>&lt ;/body> is invalid html 4 strict?

On Jun 22, 3:50 pm, Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPA...@s ohnen-moe.comwrote:

On 06/21/08 03:26 pm, reporter wrote:
>

Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

>

This post could have been more diplomatic.

>

Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which [....]

>

Perhaps I was wrong. YOU could not have been more diplomatic.

>
And you persist on wasting my time by not trimming you posts. You seem a
bit on the slow-learning side.
>
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Even though you are quite rude, I will be happy to comply if there is
some sort of a published standard for how one ought to post here.
Let's see if you can exercise your basic commuication skills and give
a link to a page that describes the standards you adhere too.

Always happy to cooperate, let's see if you can do the same.

Thanks you sir.

<body></body> is invalid html 4 strict?

<body></body> is invalid html 4 strict?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment