DOCTYPE

**Jerry** · Feb 28 '08, 02:55 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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.

**Jonas Werres** · Feb 28 '08, 05:45 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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.

**Jonas Werres** · Feb 28 '08, 05:45 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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.

**Jerry Stuckle** · Feb 28 '08, 06:55 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

**Jonas Werres** · Feb 28 '08, 08:15 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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/.

**Jerry** · Feb 28 '08, 08:45 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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?

**Jerry Stuckle** · Feb 28 '08, 08:55 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

**Jonas Werres** · Feb 28 '08, 09:05 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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?

**Jonas Werres** · Feb 28 '08, 09:05 PM

Re: DOCTYPE

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?

**Tony** · Feb 29 '08, 01:25 AM

Re: DOCTYPE

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:

HTML Versus XHTML - The Web Standards Project

http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/oct2003/

The Web Standards Project is a grassroots coalition fighting for standards which ensure simple, affordable access to web technologies for all.

Of course, that's over 4 years old - and that's also the case with the
info that I find...

**Jerry Stuckle** · Feb 29 '08, 01:35 AM

Re: DOCTYPE

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.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

**Jerry Stuckle** · Feb 29 '08, 01:35 AM

Re: DOCTYPE

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:

HTML Versus XHTML - The Web Standards Project

http://www.webstandards.org/learn/articles/askw3c/oct2003/

The Web Standards Project is a grassroots coalition fighting for standards which ensure simple, affordable access to web technologies for all.

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.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

**Jonas Werres** · Feb 29 '08, 09:25 AM

Re: DOCTYPE

Sure. I go there regularly. So what?

>

It is XHTML? So obviously at least they do not recommend NOT to use it.

**Jonas Werres** · Feb 29 '08, 09:25 AM

Re: DOCTYPE

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?

DOCTYPE

DOCTYPE

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment