Validating a page with W3.org

D

Dave Kelly

I am confused. I am trying to validate some html code. I get a tentative
validation with this caveat.



The detected DOCTYPE Declaration "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML 4.01
Transitional">" has been suppressed and the DOCTYPE for "HTML 4.01
Transitional" inserted instead, but even if no errors are shown below
the document will not be Valid until you update it to reflect this new
DOCTYPE.



It goes on to say:
The document located at <http://www.texasflyfishers.org/windknots.htm>
was checked and found to be tentatively valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.
This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we
successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser.
In other words, the document would validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional if
you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed
automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.

I checked 'show source' and the only thing that stands out is the change
of the 1st line from transitional to loose.

Am I trying to validate in the correct DOCTYPE, 'transitional'?
Under 'strict' there are 10 errors.

TIA
Dave
 
C

Chris F.A. Johnson

I am confused. I am trying to validate some html code. I get a tentative
validation with this caveat.

The detected DOCTYPE Declaration "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML 4.01
Transitional">" has been suppressed and the DOCTYPE for "HTML 4.01
Transitional" inserted instead, but even if no errors are shown below
the document will not be Valid until you update it to reflect this new
DOCTYPE.

It goes on to say:
The document located at <http://www.texasflyfishers.org/windknots.htm>
was checked and found to be tentatively valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.
This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we
successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser.
In other words, the document would validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional if
you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed
automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.

I checked 'show source' and the only thing that stands out is the change
of the 1st line from transitional to loose.

Am I trying to validate in the correct DOCTYPE, 'transitional'?
Under 'strict' there are 10 errors.
Click to expand...

Use strict and fix the errors. It will not be hard to do if you use
an external stylesheet, e.g.:
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/windknots.htm>
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Dave said:
I am confused. I am trying to validate some html code. I get a tentative
validation with this caveat.
Click to expand...
<snip>

You have:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML 4.01 Transitional">

You should have:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

....the full usage. See:
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html

Blame this on "Bluefish", which appears to be a rather bad, ancient?,
WYSIWYG program, I'd say. Try Kompozer; it should do much better:
http://www.kompozer.net/
Under 'strict' there are 10 errors.
Click to expand...

I was surprised there were only 10. :)
 
R

Robert Baer

Dave said:
I am confused. I am trying to validate some html code. I get a tentative
validation with this caveat.



The detected DOCTYPE Declaration "<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD
HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML 4.01 Transitional">" has been
suppressed and the DOCTYPE for "HTML 4.01 Transitional" inserted
instead, but even if no errors are shown below the document will not be
Valid until you update it to reflect this new DOCTYPE.



It goes on to say:
The document located at <http://www.texasflyfishers.org/windknots.htm>
was checked and found to be tentatively valid HTML 4.01 Transitional.
This means that with the use of some fallback or override mechanism, we
successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser.
In other words, the document would validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional if
you changed the markup to match the changes we have performed
automatically, but it will not be valid until you make these changes.

I checked 'show source' and the only thing that stands out is the change
of the 1st line from transitional to loose.

Am I trying to validate in the correct DOCTYPE, 'transitional'?
Under 'strict' there are 10 errors.

TIA
Dave
Click to expand...
I know very little about coding in HTML, but it would not hurt to try
fixing those errors, *one at a time* and doing a re-check; strict first,
transitional second.
 
A

andrew

[...]
Blame this on "Bluefish", which appears to be a rather bad, ancient?,
WYSIWYG program, I'd say. Try Kompozer; it should do much better:
http://www.kompozer.net/
Click to expand...

Can I politely disagree here? Bluefish is _not_ actually a WYSIWYG
program. It it is in fact one of the better 'coding view' only Open
Source applications:

http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/

Mind you they could correct validations errors on this opening page
:)

Andrew
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Robert said:
a re-check; strict first, transitional second.
Click to expand...

Huh? If a page validates as Strict, it will validate as Transitional, but
not vice versa. What's the point in taking an already-validating Strict
page and testing it against the Transitional DTD? It will always pass.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 32 days, 4:29.]

Parsing an HTML Table with PEAR's XML_HTTPSax3
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/20/html-table-parsing/
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

andrew said:
Can I politely disagree here?
Sure.

Bluefish is _not_ actually a WYSIWYG program. It it is in fact one of
the better 'coding view' only Open Source applications:
http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/

Mind you they could correct validations errors on this opening page
Click to expand...

...and they could drop the xml prolog so IE doesn't go into quirks mode.
But I guess that is manual. Looks pretty nice; I'll have to give it a
try.
 
D

Dave Kelly

I want to thank everyone for the feedback. And the urging to fix the errors.

I followed ya'lls lead and suggestions and can not put the W3C
validation seal on that page.

I had had reports that several of our members were have troubles with
that page. I spent a day or so trying to find the problem was preparing
to come to this group for help.

I suddenly realized that that piece of code had NEVER been validates.
Better do that - and you know the rest.

I'll ask those members to try again and report back in a few days.

Again, Thanks.
Dave
 
N

Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:51:37 GMT
Toby A Inkster scribed:
Huh? If a page validates as Strict, it will validate as Transitional, but
not vice versa. What's the point in taking an already-validating Strict
page and testing it against the Transitional DTD? It will always pass.
Click to expand...

I think he meant that if it doesn't pass "strict", it may pass
"transitional".
 
N

Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 02:32:37
GMT Dave Kelly scribed:
I want to thank everyone for the feedback. And the urging to fix the
errors.

I followed ya'lls lead and suggestions and can not put the W3C
validation seal on that page.
Click to expand...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? According to your first post, you could have done
that by simply using the correct doctype.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Scripsit Neredbojias:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? According to your first post, you could have
done that by simply using the correct doctype.
Click to expand...

But maybe he found my page on "HTML validation" and realized that the "W3C
validation seal" is worse than useless. :)
 
A

asdf

Jukka K. Korpela said:
Scripsit Neredbojias:


But maybe he found my page on "HTML validation" and realized that the "W3C
validation seal" is worse than useless. :)
Click to expand...

Please post URL :p
 
T

Toby A Inkster

Neredbojias said:
Toby A Inkster scribed:


I think he meant that if it doesn't pass "strict", it may pass
"transitional".
Click to expand...

OK -- that makes sense I suppose.

I was thinking he meant something akin to: first, measure your hand
luggage to make sure it will safely fit into the overhead lockers; then
measure your hand luggage to make sure it will fit onto the plane.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.12-12mdksmp, up 32 days, 12:22.]

Parsing an HTML Table with PEAR's XML_HTTPSax3
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/07/20/html-table-parsing/
 
N

Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:44:03
GMT Toby A Inkster scribed:
OK -- that makes sense I suppose.

I was thinking he meant something akin to: first, measure your hand
luggage to make sure it will safely fit into the overhead lockers;
then measure your hand luggage to make sure it will fit onto the
plane.
Click to expand...

I figured that's what you figured but also figured the OP figured on a
scale of decreasing difficulties, figuratively speaking.
 
N

Neredbojias

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:28:16
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
Scripsit Neredbojias:


But maybe he found my page on "HTML validation" and realized that the
"W3C validation seal" is worse than useless. :)
Click to expand...

Deep down inside I can't honestly argue with that. Here's a confession I
probably shouldn't be making: whenever I want to "slip" something
"untoward" through ye olde validator, I put it in a j/s document.write.
Works every time. :) I have an iframe somewhere in a 4.01 strict page
which validates perfectly. Yeah, I know, -I'm sooooooooo bad.

Nevertheless, I think the validator serves a useful puprose and I'm glad it
exists. One shouldn't take its results as "the word of God", however.
 
R

rf

Neredbojias said:
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:28:16
GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:


Deep down inside I can't honestly argue with that. Here's a confession I
probably shouldn't be making: whenever I want to "slip" something
"untoward" through ye olde validator, I put it in a j/s document.write.
Click to expand...

A good confession, but for the wrong reasons. (I also find that I need to
confess: I agree with Korpela on this.)

You want to do something that you *know* will not validate, so you use a
construct that bypasses the validator and introduces a layer of obfuscation
as well. Sorry, head in sand approach IMHO. You know you are "doing wrong"
but if you hide in the javascript sandbox then perhaps nobody will notice.
Crikey, with this approach your page could be one single JS call that
commits all sorts if infractions, including using <font> elements, and still
"validate".

Muses: what if the validator suddenly started to validate the resultant DOM
and not the source? :)
Works every time. :)
Click to expand...

Except when javascript is disabled and then you lose content for the 10% or
so, for no other reason than the exhalted goal of validation.
I have an iframe somewhere in a 4.01 strict page
which validates perfectly. Yeah, I know, -I'm sooooooooo bad.
Click to expand...

dorayme, where are you now?
Nevertheless, I think the validator serves a useful puprose and I'm glad
it
exists. One shouldn't take its results as "the word of God", however.
Click to expand...

The validator exists to validate to the published standard. However even
strict languages like C++ allow one to turn off their "validation" warnings
if there is a need to do so. I personally treat the HTML validator as a
cleanup the typos tool.

If you have cause to go outside the standards, for whatever reason, and
mostly those reasons are to be able to survive in the *real* world, then do
so.

Perhaps include a comment in the source to the effect that you are including
an iframe for *this* reason. Perhaps you are writing a CMS where an iframe
is compulsory given the poor browser support for editable content. Nobody
will mind, except the "no tables" purists (and yes, I do use tables for
layout when nothing else will work).

Your client will never know, or even care, or even know that she might need
to care. Job done.
 
B

Bergamot

Neredbojias said:
whenever I want to "slip" something
"untoward" through ye olde validator, I put it in a j/s document.write.
Click to expand...

That's icky, and generally a bad practice, as rf mentioned.
Nevertheless, I think the validator serves a useful puprose and I'm glad it
exists. One shouldn't take its results as "the word of God", however.
Click to expand...

Right on both counts. You should take your own advice, though.

Validating is just a tool--validated code isn't an end to itself.
You don't do yourself any favors by this js trickery.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Unable to Validate at w3.org 4
Help with my responsive home page 2
W3C validation error 11
Validating page with "embed" command 4
Help with code 0
Even McMahon fails validation 21
w3.org suggestion .. page, date, time and topic, date, time code (wish list). 2
W3 Validation: Does it do scripts? 12

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 69 (members: 1, guests: 68)
Robots: 396

Forum statistics

Threads
473,982
Messages
2,570,185
Members
46,736
Latest member
AdolphBig6

Latest Threads

Top