W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Validation of frameset

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:40:56 +0100
To: imperial@lava.net
cc: supertyphoon@mindspring.com, keith_bowes@hotmail.com, W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020314074536-f01050001-16F182F9-3717-11D6-B1A9-00039300CF5C-1013-010c@192.168.1.7>
John Vince Imperial <imperial@lava.net> wrote:

>I have been testing my frameset files against the W3C XHMTL 1.0 Frameset
>validator and have found that it is generating errors that should not be
>generated.
>
>One of the errors that the W3C validator generator reports is:
>
>Error:  There is no attribute for "frameborder" for this element (in this
>HTML version)
>
>Since I have the following in everyone of my frameset documents, including
>the latest one tested:
>
><!DOCTYPE html
>     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN"
>     "DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">
>
>there should be no "frameborder" error generated for a line such as the
one
>below:
>
><frameset rows="80,*" cols="640,*" frameborder="0" framespacing="0">
>  ...
>  ...
></frameset>
>
>All lines are in accordance with HTML 4.01, which is part and parcel of
>XHTML 1.0 specification.

The XHTML 1.0 Frameset DTD does not include a "frameborder" attribute for
the "frameset" element. You need to use CSS or some similar method to
achieve your goal.



>Since the last threaded message is dated June 30, 2000, does this mean
>everyone is ignoring W3C and its validators?  I find this disturbing
>since I am trying to emphasize in my client deliverables the value of
>W3C and using its validation toolsets as a "value-add" for well-formed
>code.

No, it means the W3C List Archives are badly broken. :-)

There's been slow but steady traffic here.



-- 
We've gotten to a point where a human-readable,   human-editable text format
for structured data has become a complex nightmare where somebody can safely
say  "As many threads on xml-dev have shown, text-based processing of XML is
hazardous at best" and be perfectly valid in saying it.      -- Tom Bradford
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 01:45:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:01 GMT