Never Mind

[Joy Beeson]

I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
almost-blank line

</p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
⁂</center>
</p><p> Just in case we like the devilled eggs:

to mark a change of subject or a lapse in time. Each time these lines
occur, validator.w3.org highlights the next-to-the last ">" (That is,

No p element in scope, but a p end tag seen

But the <p> is right there plainer than the nose on my face.

Could this be a side effect of putting <center></center> inside a
paragraph?

I changed a couple, the validator no longer mentioned them, I changed
all to

</p><center><p> <!-- *A* -->
⁂</p>
</center><p>

And now the validator contents itself with complaining that <center>
is obsolete, which bothers me not one whit.

On the other hand, the validator is happy with my changes of topic,
but I can no longer simply paste two lines above a standard paragraph
beginning when I want to put in a marked blank line. But it took me a
long time to figure out the obvious way to insert the old code; there
is no doubt an easy way that at the moment escapes me; perhaps I could
put it on a defined key such as the one I used for signatures on
letters back when I wrote enough letters that I could remember where
the signature key was. (Now I copy an old letter and delete the
body.)

And I'm going to mail this post anyway, to let you guys know that
sometimes you explain things just by being there.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

 

[richard]

I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
almost-blank line

</p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
⁂</center>
</p><p> Just in case we like the devilled eggs:

to mark a change of subject or a lapse in time. Each time these lines
occur, validator.w3.org highlights the next-to-the last ">" (That is,


But the <p> is right there plainer than the nose on my face.

Could this be a side effect of putting <center></center> inside a
paragraph?

I changed a couple, the validator no longer mentioned them, I changed
all to

</p><center><p> <!-- *A* -->
⁂</p>
</center><p>

And now the validator contents itself with complaining that <center>
is obsolete, which bothers me not one whit.

On the other hand, the validator is happy with my changes of topic,
but I can no longer simply paste two lines above a standard paragraph
beginning when I want to put in a marked blank line. But it took me a
long time to figure out the obvious way to insert the old code; there
is no doubt an easy way that at the moment escapes me; perhaps I could
put it on a defined key such as the one I used for signatures on
letters back when I wrote enough letters that I could remember where
the signature key was. (Now I copy an old letter and delete the
body.)

And I'm going to mail this post anyway, to let you guys know that
sometimes you explain things just by being there.

it should be <p><center>test</center></p>
or <center><p>text</p></center>
If the latter is what you are attempting, then try this
<div class="paragraph"><p>text</p></div>
and style the division as below.

better â–º <p class=center"></p>
CSS: .center { text-align:center;}

The text you are attempting to center is a "comment".
That will never be shown on the page regardless of where it is.

Another method for centering an object is
margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

it should be <p><center>test</center></p>
or <center><p>text</p></center>
If the latter is what you are attempting, then try this
<div class="paragraph"><p>text</p></div>
and style the division as below.

better ??? <p class=center"></p>
CSS: .center { text-align:center;}

The text you are attempting to center is a "comment".

No, she's trying to center ⁂

Though I don't understand why she doesn't use CSS.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
almost-blank line

</p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
⁂</center>
</p><p>

Like most comments, the comment “*A*†is misleading, since the character
used in the content is ASTERISM, “â‚â€. This character is really the
problem you should consider: have you specified for it a reasonable list
of font families, containing fonts that have a glyph for it? Cf. to the
list at
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2042/fontsupport.htm
Otherwise, old browsers might even be unable to display it at all.

Each time these lines
occur, validator.w3.org highlights the next-to-the last ">" (That is,

That’s because the <center> tag, starting a block-level element,
implicitly closes the open p tag, as if the markup started with

</p><p></p><center>

And this makes the next </p> homeless. The minimal fix is to remove that
</p> tag. A better fix is to use

<p align=center>⁂</p>

though some people say you should used

<p class=divider>⁂</p>

together with a CSS rule like

..divider { text-align: center }

And some Real Purists (like a past version of me) might tell you to use
<hr> and just style it so that it appears as a centered asterism. (It’s
possible by the spec, but perhaps not well enough supported yet by all
those old browsers around.) The reason is that <hr> has always been
defined to denote “change of topicâ€, even though it is named so that
uneducated people would guess that it means “horizontal ruleâ€. ☺

Could this be a side effect of putting <center></center> inside a
paragraph?

In a sense. It’s the effect of trying to put a center element inside a p
element, which is forbidden (by HTML specs) and impossible (browsers
behave like I described, implicitly closing the p element).

And now the validator contents itself with complaining that <center>
is obsolete, which bothers me not one whit.

Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
HTML5 rules, which express some people’s opinion that presentational
markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
choice, probably.

 

[dorayme]

I validated my diary, just for practice. I habitually use an
almost-blank line

</p><p><center> <!-- *A* -->
⁂</center>
</p><p>

If you do not want to make the safeguards JK recommended about fonts
and you are not worried otherwise, use an image of the asterisks. I
give you a choice for the alt text which can come in play if images
are off, you might choose yet another alt replacement if you wish.

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/beetson.html>

 

[Luuk]

If you do not want to make the safeguards JK recommended about fonts
and you are not worried otherwise, use an image of the asterisks. I
give you a choice for the alt text which can come in play if images
are off, you might choose yet another alt replacement if you wish.

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/beetson.html>

This page does not show correctly in IE10, with 'Show pictures' off

It also show real big '*' when printing the page (=looking a preview,
because i did not waste a 'forrest' for actually printing...)

 

[dorayme]

This page does not show correctly in IE10, with 'Show pictures' off

It also show real big '*' when printing the page (=looking a preview,
because i did not waste a 'forrest' for actually printing...)

Don't know much about IE10, thanks for the reminder.

If really using, one should provide for printing, my above was just
something quick for screen media. I did use a rather large asterisk
set to keep sharpness for em enlargement.

It *is* a worry using images when images are not available! Some
browsers do behave rather differently in respect to alt text...

Perhaps safest of all is

<hr style="width: 80%">

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

And some Real Purists (like a past version of me) might tell you to use
<hr> and just style it so that it appears as a centered asterism. (It’s
possible by the spec, but perhaps not well enough supported yet by all
those old browsers around.) The reason is that <hr> has always been
defined to denote “change of topicâ€, even though it is named so that
uneducated people would guess that it means “horizontal ruleâ€. ☺

Since it is really just a decoration and not content I think that it
falls under the purview of CSS. I would use a class on the paragraph or
div it the entries encompass more than one paragraph. It won't work for
<=IE7 but since it just decoration would not impact the content IMO. Not
sure if OP had the asterism preceeding or following entries but that is
ease to adjust, and html entities will not work with generated content
so either use unicode, alternative character, or use an image:


<!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=UTF-8">
<title>Via CSS</title>

<style type="text/css">
..entry:after { content: 'â‚'; display: block; text-align: center; }
</style>
</head>

<body>
<p class="entry">
This is one paragraph entry...
</p>

<div class="entry">
<p>
An entry with more than one paragraphs...
</p>
<p>
Second associated paragraph...
</p>
</div>

<p class="entry">
This is one paragraph entry...
</p>

</body></html>

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Since it is really just a decoration and not content I think that it
falls under the purview of CSS.

The description in the original message was “to mark a change of subject
or a lapse in timeâ€. This sounds like a change of topic to me. (“A lapse
of time†seems to relate to a story and imply some change of topic.) In
speech rendering, I would expect this to be rendered as a considerable
pause.

That’s way <hr> would appear to be appropriate, because it has a default
rendering that is at least tolerable for this purpose. Styling <hr> is a
bit tricky, due to inconsistencies between browsers in its default
rendering. But the following would work reasonably:

hr {
border: none;
height: 1em;
text-align: center;
}
hr:before {
content: "***";
}

If you really want an asterism instead of three asterisks, contrary to
literary tradition, you can replace "***" by "\2042".

 

[Joy Beeson]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"

Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.

Then why are you using <!doctype html>, which makes the validator apply
HTML5 rules, which express some people’s opinion that presentational
markup like <center> is Evil, Obsolete, and Anathema? If you wish to
keep using such markup, the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype is a better
choice, probably.

Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
<!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
"html" and doesn't say which flavor. Terms of art will mess you up
every time. Especially when two different arts use the same term, as
when doctors and knitters say "stockinet". (Doctors mean "one-on-one
ribbing")

If validators weren't as useful as spelling checkers, I'd delete
doctypes entirely.

--------------------------------

After following links from the validator site, the new latest is
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Seems to me that there are a great many more characters in that than
are needed.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

 

[Joy Beeson]

Though I don't understand why she doesn't use CSS.

Unless there are wing-dings I haven't yet found and removed lurking in
ancient files, <center> is the *only* presentational element I ever
use. Learning CSS just for that would be like shooting a flea with an
elephant gun.

Particularly since the file I was practicing on is the draft copy for
a plain-text e-mail and all the <center>s drop out anyway -- I stick
them in because it looks nice while I'm proofreading.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

 

[Joy Beeson]

there
is no doubt an easy way that at the moment escapes me;

So when I closed out May and opened June, it was easier to type

</p><center>⁂
</center><p> <!-- *A* -->

</p><p> Took a walk down Boys City after my nap; the


Than to copy from the old document. This makes the validator happy,
but it doesn't make me happy. The asterism is a separate paragraph
and it ought to be *marked* as a separate paragraph; I don't like
relying on deprecated tags to keep it from being appliqu&eacute;d to
the previous paragraph.

Not to mention that there are no letters between <center> and
</center>, which causes my spelling checker to report it as a repeated
word. Not good in a draft copy that gets spelling-checked after each
modification.

A little shuffling around produced:

</p><center><p> <!-- *A* -->
⁂</p>
</center><p> I did measure from the selvages for the two

Which keeps both me and the validator happy, and encroaches less on
the space reserved for content. (I place a VERY high value on being
able to read source code as if it were plain text.)

It also puts letters between the centers, so I could go back to using
*** to represent the asterism, but I've become accustomed to *A*.

(I just now noticed that "A" stands for "Asterism". I selected A
because it was the symmetrical letter that looked best between two
asterisks in eighty-column font.)

This version removes the ability to paste the asterism above a new
paragraph, but I think I can get used to pasting it as a new
paragraph.

And maybe there's a variation on "enter" that isn't already in use,
that I could define as "new topic".

Perhaps I should have separate signs for "sharp turn" and "I've been
away from the typewriter for a while". The document contains no
section breaks, so <hr> would do for "sharp turn". Or I could just
say "-----------------"

Now it's way past time to stop talking about talking about it and get
back to doing it.



--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://www.debeeson.net/joy/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

 

[Doug Miller]

After following links from the validator site, the new latest is
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Seems to me that there are a great many more characters in that than
are needed.

Only because you fail to understand their purpose.

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/Doctype
http://alistapart.com/article/doctype/

 

[Tim Streater]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 09:38:24 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"

Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.


Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
<!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
"html" and doesn't say which flavor. Terms of art will mess you up
every time. Especially when two different arts use the same term, as
when doctors and knitters say "stockinet". (Doctors mean "one-on-one
ribbing")

If validators weren't as useful as spelling checkers, I'd delete
doctypes entirely.

<!doctype html> is the only one you need. And you do need it, your
browser will operate in quirks mode if you have no doctype. I wouldn't
bother with standalone validators, use browsers to validate your html.

 

[dorayme]

I wouldn't
bother with standalone validators, use browsers to validate your html.

This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
explained a few times.

 

[Joy Beeson]

This is not good advice for a number of reasons which have been
explained a few times.

Even I could see that he was off the wall.

 

[se]

Even I could see that he was off the wall.

It isn't a good idea wiping the floor with somebody here that is
trying to extend your knowledge. There's no sign from you of knowing
anything of website validating.

/se

 

[dorayme]

Even I could see that he was off the wall.

He has one good practical point and that is that you should test your
website in different browsers to see what others will see, you should
also change the text size as you do this and you should change the
browser size - in other words take it for a test run.

But you cannot test your website in browsers that have not been
created. It is almost logically impossible. Nor can you predict
changes to browsers. Guess where the browser makers get quite a bit,
not all, of their information from? They get it from the various
documentations that go to informing validators. It's a big complicated
conversation. You can help yourself by at the very least doing the
validations that provide a sort of prima facie ok. Everything is
provisional, but it is a handle that would be foolish to ignore.

Put it another way, just as with many a construction of any object for
public use, in developing you will find it very useful indeed in the
long run to run it by the validators to pick up alleged mistakes for
your consideration. Your remark about spell-checkers was spot on!

If you understand a bit about these things, you will get to the stage
of not being too worried by some flagged errors or warnings. But if
you do not understand such things, perhaps your best bet is to make
sure it validates and that it works in all your tests too.

 

[Lewis]

Quite a lot of useful information; thank you.

Every time I ask which doctype to use, I get a different answer, and
<!doctype html> was the latest. Seemed logical, since it only says
"html" and doesn't say which flavor.

Sigh.

After following links from the validator site, the new latest is
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"

"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Transitional should not be used, the transition happened a decade ago.
Either write 4.01 strict or write HTML5. Transitional is the sure sign
of laziness or ancient pages.

 

[Tim Streater]

Sigh.

<!doctype html> "says" HTML5.

Only to a validator. Browers only care whether you have a doctype
or not, and will correspondingly operate either in standards or quirks
mode.