validation issues

**Jukka K. Korpela** · Jul 20 '05, 06:52 PM

Re: validation issues

"Rasmus Marcussen" <rasmus@samtale terapi.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> it validates like this:
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...dk/samtaletera
> pi/home.htm[/color]

Well, it does _not_ validate, as you describe.
[color=blue]
> <param name="movie"
> value="file:///C|/Documents%20and %20Settings/Bruger/Dokumenter/free.sw
> f" />[/color]

That's worse than nonsense in WWW terms, though not a validation issue.
file: URLs are not useful on the WWW. The above might get fixed to
something sensible by the authoring software, but if such essentially
internal format is uploaded using other tools, things just don't work.
[color=blue]
> what doesnt make sense is that all the proporties in the
> <embed></embed> container seems to be invalid[/color]

They are invalid since the embed element itself is. Admittedly the
validator could do a better job in reporting errors, but most validators
are fairly simple-minded and based on software that was designed to be
used by people who know their SGML.
[color=blue]
> that the
> embed element is undefined does it make any sense to you?[/color]

It makes complete sense to me. If it does not make sense to you, then you
simply do not know what validation is. Not surprising, since most people
don't, and none of us was born with such knowledge. For a starter, you
might read my treatise on what validation is and what it is not:

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

[color=blue]
> can it be fixed?[/color]

Surely. But what do you want?

You could write a customized DTD that permits an EMBED element. Actually
the tagsoup DTD at http://sandbox.bednarz.nl/sgml/dtd/tagsoup.dtd
might suit your needs. Of course, using such a DTD would not make your
document conform better to W3C recommendations ; au contraire, the
recommendations tell you _not_ to use any DTD but those issued by the
W3C, or even "call" them in any other way than using the DOCTYPE
incantations approved by the W3C. But you would have a valid (SGML or
XML) document.

You could remove the EMBED element; it only exists as a fallback content.
(Or you could replace it by some other fallback content.)

I don't think there's any browser that implements OBJECT but not EMBED.
So you could remove the OBJECT markup around the EMBED element and ignore
validator's messages about EMBED. The EMBED element is the practical tool
for element embedding, and wrapping it inside OBJECT is just theoretical
and may summon some demons that hide in the bugs of implementation of
OBJECT in browsers. (This could of course be combined with the first
suggestion, using a customized DTD.)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

**Harlan Messinger** · Jul 20 '05, 06:52 PM

Re: validation issues

"Rasmus Marcussen" <rasmus@samtale terapi.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>hello
>
>i friend of mine has made this page:
>http://home1.stofanet.dk/samtaleterapi/home.htm
>it validates like this:
>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...erapi/home.htm
>
>it seems there is something wrong with the head, but i cant figure out what[/color]

The HEAD element is required to contain a TITLE element. Yours
doesn't, so when the validator finds the closing </head> tag, it tells
you that the element was closed prematurely.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.

validation issues

validation issues

Comment

Comment