W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: first disregarding and then complaining about missing </noframes>

From: <html-tidy@war-of-the-worlds.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:14:45 -0600
Message-Id: <v04220801b46862d34616@[]>
To: html-tidy@w3.org
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> wrote:

>attached page (managment frameset from Zope>

No attachment here.

> generates the following errors:
>line 4 column 1 - Warning: <script> lacks "type" attribute
>line 19 column 1 - Warning: inserting implicit <body>
>line 20 column 1 - Warning: discarding unexpected </noframes>
>line 23 column 2 - Warning: missing </noframes>
>the last two seem to be contradicting.

A premature endtag can be unexpected, and then turn up missing where it
should have been.

>And I'm not sure that placing <noframes> inside <frameset ...> is correct ?

No, it is correct.  In a frameset document, NOFRAMES is legal inside
FRAMESET and contains BODY.  Otherwise, NOFRAMES is seen as BODY content
and implies BODY, which is illegal for a frameset document.

NOFRAMES should be in the outermost FRAMESET of the frameset document,
preferably just before closure of that frameset, making the last four
endtags of the document be the sequence
         ,=<#)-=#  <http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/>
 _-~_-(####)-_~-_  "Did you see that Parkins boy's body in the tunnels?" "Just
(#>_--'~--~`--_<#)  the photos.  Worst thing I've ever seen; kid had no face."
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 12:14:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 13 July 2018 08:58:58 UTC