From: Seething13@webtv.net (§ee†hing¹³) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:20:44 -0400 (EDT) To: www-validator@w3.org Message-ID: <21712-3B7C7F7C-85@storefull-222.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Subject: Re: Neither! I do believe I am most likely missing your point Matt, as I cannot figure out WHY you would be adding the trailing / to all your tags if you are NOT wanting to convert to XHTML. I honestly don't think that either version should validate as HTML 4.0 or 4.01 with the / included, it's just not part of that version. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but good luck digging through your DTDs.... Oh, and I found out why your meta tags are screwy....... meta tags aren't like a <br> or a <hr> that convert to XHTML as <br /> and <hr />....... they are like a <head> </head> or a <body> </body> in that to be done correctly, a meta tag has a whole seperate ending tag, not just a / added into the actual <meta> element. They should be <meta "......info here...."> </meta> for XHTML (according to www.w3schools.com, who's site is converted to XHTML and validates with the w3 validator). Here trust me.....I'm NOT trying to waste your time......this whole site very distinctly has taken great effort to convert to XHTML and DOES use the w3 validator to check their site, and it IS a good site to learn the markup: http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/attr_meta.asp (this is JUST the page on the meta tag details) But, if you prefer to bash your head against the wall sifting through DTDs, well, happy bashing Matt! Good luck trying to do whatever it is you are trying to do......validating incorrect XHTML as HTML 4.0, and wondering what the problem is with the validator (or the DTD).... (now I believe I'LL go dig through that DTD)
attached mail follows:
Message-ID: <3B7BCCF6.F3132FE7@kids.wustl.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:39:02 -0500 From: Matthew Wickline <wickline_m@kids.wustl.edu> To: §eeİhing13 <Seething13@webtv.net> Subject: Re: Neither! (Programmer problem!) §eeİhing13 wrote: > going to stick with HTML 4.01 for a while longer..... Actually, if you look at my Doctype, those two examples I validated were using 4.01 transitional. One validates. The other doesn't. Both use trailing slashes in the BR and HR tags. One uses trailing slahes in a META tag (and does not validate) and the other does not use them in a META tag (and does validate). I'm gonna hold off on searching through tutorials because the validator doesn't use tutorials. The validator should be relying on the DTD. If I can't spot the reason in the DTD, then either I'm missing something, or the validator is doing something wrong, or this is one of those things that the standard specifies, but can't include in the DTD. From what Tim said (on list), I'm now thinking that *neither* of my two examples is correct. It just may be that the reason one of them validates is that the type of problem isn't something that is specified in the DTD. This is HTML 4.01, and HTML has a fair number of rules which can't be specified in the DTD. That's one of the problems XML (and XHTML) is supposed to help fix. I'd dig through the tutorials, but I'm guessing that the answer won't be found there. The tutorails are someone's interpretation of the standards, presented in a manner that allows folks to learn to create things which follow the standards. As such, an HTML 4.01 tutorial doesn't need to address trailing slashes because it's easier to just not mention them at all, since HTML 4.01 doesn't need them. I'm figuring that the answer is somewhere in the standards, or in the validator's implementation. -matt