<noscript> validation error with XHTML

[Burton Figg]

My homepage, www.jimpix.co.uk uses transitional XHTML.

The whole thing validates except one line:

<noscript><img height="1" width="1" alt=""
src="http://u0.extreme-dm.com/0.gif?tag=riggott&amp;j=n" /></noscript>

I get this error on this page:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.jimpix.co.uk

Line 106, column 18: document type does not allow element "noscript" here;
missing one of "object", "applet", "map", "iframe", "button", "ins", "del"
start-tag

this is pointing to the start of the <noscript> tag.

I need the code to enable a site tracker I use (XTreme Tracking).

I have had a look on usenet and the web, but can't find anything to help
solve it.

Thanks

Jim

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Line 106, column 18: document type does not allow element "noscript" here;
missing one of "object", "applet", "map", "iframe", "button", "ins", "del"

You have tried to put a noscript inside a paragraph:

<p>...<noscript>...</noscript>...</p>

This is not allowed thanks to the weird content model of the <noscript/>
element. (A sensible content model can't be done, due to the limitations
of SGML DTDs.)

Instead, try something like:

<p>...</p><noscript><p>...</p></noscript><p>...</p>

Or, as a strange (but valid) workaround:

<p>...<object><noscript>...</noscript></object>...</p>

 

[Steve R.]

Burton Figg wrote in message ...

My homepage, www.jimpix.co.uk uses transitional XHTML.
The whole thing validates except one line:

Forget the validation, those long thin lines of text butting right up
against the edges of the monitor are a nightmare for reading on 1024x768 or
larger.

You ought to put the whole thing in a table at 85-90% width, to make it
more *pleasant* to read.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Steve R.:

Burton Figg wrote in message ...


Forget the validation, those long thin lines of text butting right up
against the edges of the monitor are a nightmare for reading on 1024x768 or
larger.

You ought to put the whole thing in a table at 85-90% width, to make it
more *pleasant* to read.

<g> But the page states:
"No Tables
This page uses no tables, thanks to the CSS freely available from
bluerobot."

How about removing the zero margins and padding from the body in the CSS?

He should validate the CSS as well. I doubt if: .newsy {z`
will pass. There are a number of errors.
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/....co.uk/&warning=1&profile=css2&usermedium=all>

 

[DU]

Burton Figg wrote in message ...



Forget the validation, those long thin lines of text butting right up
against the edges of the monitor are a nightmare for reading on 1024x768 or
larger.

You ought to put the whole thing in a table at 85-90% width, to make it
more *pleasant* to read.

Table design are a nightmare on the web right now and is certainly not
recommendable.

Why tables for layout is stupid:
problems defined, solutions offered
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

The problem with using tables
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/06problems.html

All browsers have default margin or padding (even border too) values for
root element and body element. By removing these, one makes his webpages
harder to read. By not defining any margin (and padding) on root element
and on body, one makes his webpage easier to reaed.

DU

 

[Steve R.]

DU < wrote in message ...

Table designs are a nightmare on the web right now

A nightmare !!!!! You've got to be joking. The websites I look at which are
table -based load a damn sight more quickly than most of the CSS based
ones.

and is certainly not recommendable.

By what *official* body ?

Why tables for layout is stupid:
http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/

Just read through it. What a load of tosh. Anyone who creates tables the
way that website suggests ought to need their heads examined. A HUGE
exaggeration.

Why CSS doesn't work very well
http://www.Just look at the problems people on the HTML newsgroups are
having with CSS

 

[Toby A Inkster]

DU < wrote in message ...

Table designs [are] certainly not recommendable.

By what *official* body ?

What would you class as official? How about the body where Tim
Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web has an office? I think when it
comes to the WWW, such a body is probably the most "official". This body
is the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

You should read the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines:

(Guideline 3)
| Misusing markup for a presentation effect (e.g., using a table for
| layout or a header to change the font size) makes it difficult for users
| with specialized software to understand the organization of the page or
| to navigate through it.

(Guideline 5)
| Tables should be used to mark up truly tabular information ("data
| tables"). Content developers should avoid using them to lay out pages
| ("layout tables").

 

[DU]

DU < wrote in message ...



A nightmare !!!!! You've got to be joking.

Try to upgrade and update a page based on table design, in particular
nested tables: that is a nightmare to do.

The websites I look at which are

table -based load a damn sight more quickly than most of the CSS based
ones.

More quickly? Ok. Bring up the urls, your loading time and parsing time
numbers so that we can all verify your claims here and compare results.
Go ahead, we're all waiting.

By what *official* body ?

By a lot of accessibility and usability bodies: WAI, WAVE, Bobby,
HiSoftware Cynthia, etc.
By the W3C with its User Agent Accessibility Guidelines.
By lots of IT corporations involved into webpage creation or involved
into making their pages accessible to various user agents.

Just read through it. What a load of tosh.

This was presented in a seminar for web designers, you see, and given to
web designers. And it received a lot of positive feedbacks.

Anyone who creates tables the

way that website suggests ought to need their heads examined. A HUGE
exaggeration.

Would you use MS-Excel to create an .xls document, compose a reply,
attach it and post it to reply to this newsgroup? Does that make sense
for you? There is no official body which would prevent you from doing that.
Would you use MS-Excel to answer your emails? Would that make sense to
you? Why would you resort to tables to position text on a webpage then?

I once took the main entrance page of Yahoo.com and then started to
re-construct its code by removing all the tables and nested tables and
replacing it with CSS: I reduced the page's size by over 30% and I was
most likely creating a page which would be more interoperable and
accessible... notwithstanding the ability to maintain, update and
upgrade the page a lot easier afterwards.

For every claim that you believe is an exaggeration, you can verify, put
to the test by yourself such claim: you just have to be open-minded,
give such claim an honest and fair test and then make up your mind based
on your own results, practical experience.

Why CSS doesn't work very well
http://www.Just look at the problems people on the HTML newsgroups are
having with CSS

I don't see a valid url here.
Webpage design (and mastering CSS) is not as obvious as using Notepad
either. It takes experience, knowledge and training/reading,etc.. in
order to create professional, interoperable, accessible and usable
webpages.

Here are some people who, IMO, don't need their heads examined:

Betsy Bruce:
Tableless Layout in Dreamweaver Using the CSS Box Model
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/max2003/articles/sp_bbruce.html

Drew McLellan:
Tableless layout with Dreamweaver
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/dreamweaver/articles/tableless_layout.html

CSS Layout Techniques: Look Ma, No Tables.
http://glish.com/css/

CSS Tableless Web Sites
http://www.meryl.net/css/
is a list of 900 (that's right: nine hundreds) websites using CSS
instead of table design.

DU

 

[Steve R.]

Toby Inkster wrote in message ...

(Guideline 3)
(Guideline 5)

Just guidelines, doesn't mean to say tables don't work perfectly well for
layout, as in most cases if they are properly created, they do work well
:~)

 

[Steve R.]

DU wrote in message ...

More quickly? Ok. Bring up the urls, your loading time and parsing time
numbers so that we can all verify your claims here and compare results.
Go ahead, we're all waiting.

I don't know the URLs off the top of my head, but while I'm looking at
websites I just notice CSS based ones aren't particularly quick to load
even when containing few images.

I'll make a note of some sample URLs over the next few days and report back
when I find a fair sample.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Just guidelines,

Well you didn't ask for hard and fast rules -- just a statement that
layout tables are not recommendable.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

More quickly?

To be fair, this depends on your rendering engine. Trident (IE for
Windows) for instance will not attempt to render a table until the
"</table>" tag has been downloaded. This results in tables loading
s-l-o-w-l-y. NN4 is the same I believe.

Presto (Opera 7 and above) on the other hand renders tables on a
cell-by-cell basis, so will display a table much faster.

Not sure which behaviour Gecko exhibits.

 

[DU]

DU wrote:




To be fair, this depends on your rendering engine.

It depends on several factors. If there are nested tables: that one is a
very important factor which makes page parsing and page rendering slower
and more problematic.
Tips For Authoring Fast-loading HTML Pages:
"(...)Either replace table-based layout with divs or break tables into
smaller tables that can be displayed without having to download the
entire page contents.
Rather than deeply nesting tables as in:

<TABLE>
<TABLE>
<TABLE>
...
</TABLE>
</TABLE>
</TABLE>

use unnested tables or divs as in

<TABLE>...</TABLE>
<TABLE>...</TABLE>
<TABLE>...</TABLE>
"
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/page-load-performance/

Even Opera 7 is well aware of nested tables when loading a page.
Open any page and then View/Style/Check User mode and then select Show
Structural elements and then scroll all the way down the page you're
viewing: you'll get a report of how many nested tables there are in a
page. I checked the
http://www.yahoo.com
page today and it has 135 font tags and 62 nested tables! (Opera 7.50 PR
1 build 3494)
Internally, there is a mechanism by which Opera 7 knows and counts
nested tables.

It depends also on how complex a table is (with rowspan here and there,
colspan, special rules and frame, border, border-collapse, etc..) and if
the markup is well-formed. It is known that closing <td> helps parsing
and rendering of tables for all browsers while closing <td> in HTML 4.01
transitional is not mandatory.
"Unlike Extensible Markup Language (XML), HTML has the notion of
implicitly closed tags. This includes frame, img, li, and p. If you
don't close these tags, Internet Explorer renders your pages just fine.
If you do close your tags, Internet Explorer will render your pages even
faster."
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/perf/perftips.asp#Close_Your_Tags
That's precisely the case for <td> in HTML 4.01 transitional.

Trident (IE for

Windows) for instance will not attempt to render a table until the
"</table>" tag has been downloaded.

That's mentioned in W3C CSS2: non-progressive rendering mode for tables.
You can use tables and speed up rendering by declaring <col width="n">
etc.. where n is an integer and then declaring table-layout:fixed in
which case you'll trigger the progressive rendering for table.

This results in tables loading

s-l-o-w-l-y. NN4 is the same I believe.

Presto (Opera 7 and above) on the other hand renders tables on a
cell-by-cell basis, so will display a table much faster.

Not necessarly; it depends if sufficient declarations are done along
with a css table-layout:fixed declaration. Declaring table-layout:fixed
is not enough to trigger progressive rendering mode in any/all browser.
The css declaration requires more info and declarations to make browsers
really comply: that's all explained in the spec.

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#propdef-table-layout

DU

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Internally, there is a mechanism by which Opera 7 knows and counts
nested tables.

Yes -- it's called CSS 2 -- and Opera 6+ is the only browser that supports
this part of it.

html { counter-reset: nt 0; }
table table { counter-increment: nt; }
body:after { content: "There are " counter(nt) " nested tables."; }