W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > html-tidy@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Problem with OBJECT / EMBED construction; Document tag causes Tidy message

From: Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ignacio@openservices.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: Rolf Hemmerling <hemmerling@gmx.net>
cc: <html-tidy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107121303310.28086-100000@terbidium.openservices.net>
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Rolf Hemmerling wrote:

> Hello !
>
> Topic #1:
> See
> http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/1.3/docs/tags.html
>
> <OBJECT classid="clsid:8AD9C840-044E-11D1-B3E9-00805F499D93"
>      width="200" height="200" align="baseline"
>
> codebase="http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/1.3/jinstall-13-win32.cab#Version=1,3,0,0">
>  <PARAM NAME="code" VALUE="XYZApp.class">
>  <PARAM NAME="codebase" VALUE="html/">
>  <PARAM NAME="type" VALUE="application/x-java-applet;version=1.3">
>  <PARAM NAME="model" VALUE="models/HyaluronicAcid.xyz">
>  <PARAM NAME="scriptable" VALUE="true">
>  <COMMENT>
>      <EMBED type="application/x-java-applet;version=1.3" width="200"
>         height="200" align="baseline" code="XYZApp.class"
>         codebase="html/" model="models/HyaluronicAcid.xyz"
>
> pluginspage="http://java.sun.com/products/plugin/1.3/plugin-install.html">
>      <NOEMBED>
>      </COMMENT>
>             No Java 2 SDK, Standard Edition v 1.3 support for APPLET!!
>      </NOEMBED></EMBED>
>  </OBJECT>

The COMMENT, NOEMBED, and EMBED closing tags are switched around. That is an
error in the HTML and Tidy tries to fix it. The effectiveness of the fix is
another matter...

> Tidy of 4.th August 2000 does not like:
> > line 165 column 1 - Warning: replacing unexpected </comment> by </noembed>
> > line 165 column 1 - Warning: trimming empty <noembed>
> > line 167 column 1 - Warning: replacing unexpected </noembed> by </comment>
> > line 167 column 11 - Warning: discarding unexpected </embed>
> > line 247 column 1 - Warning: html doctype doesn't match content
>
> >From practical point of view, the solution to combine both Netscape
> Browser EMBED type and Microsoft Browser OBJECT type is o.k:
> It works
>
> Even if I delete the tags
> <COMMENT>
> </COMMENT>
> </EMBED>
> as I am used to do since some years, as I have the same problem with
> embeding Real-Audio/Video files into HTML pages,
>
> and if I insist in the docfile tag
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
> , I still get a error message
>
> line 241 column 1 - Warning: html doctype doesn't match content

EMBED isn't part of HTML 4.01. Not even Transitional.

> respectively if I delete the doctype line, I get still get the message
>
> Document content looks like HTML proprietary
> no warnings or errors were found
>
> It would be great if future versions of Tidy would accept such
> solutions.
>
> How about an extra "switch" for Tidy to avoid this error message, for
> all webmaster who must integrate combined object and embeded tags ?

Are you looking for the "-q" switch? Also, errors are output to stderr.
Ignoring them is really easy, and you can check the return code to determine
whether or not any errors or warnings occured.

> If the makers of Tidy refuse to obey ( :-) ), dear makers of Tidy, how
> about starting a discussion with the Sun/Java staff for "better HTML
> coding proposals" :-) ?  This is not my turn...
>
> Any proposals for me as webmaster and HTML coder, any proposals for the
> makers of Tidy by
> other mailing list members ?
>
> Topic #2
> My document tag in all my HTML documents is
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
> as I once learned when I started with Tidy in 2000.
>
> If I parse an HTML document with such a tag with Tidy, I get the message
> Doctype given is "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> Document content looks like HTML 4.01 Transitional
>
> If I parse an HTML document without such a tag with Tidy, it includes
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> and I donīt get such a message.
>
> So why is my once-learned solution "worse" than the new solution ( worse
> as it causes an extra message ) ?
> What progress did I miss ? Especially, is it useful to delete the URL in
> the document tag, after all ?

See my previous comment, although you're right about the extraneous message
appearing with the DOCTYPE URL.

> Sincerely
> Rolf

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams  <ignacio@openservices.net>
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 13:17:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 April 2012 06:13:46 GMT