W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2005

Re: Valid Framesets

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:53:24 +0300 (EEST)
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0508262343370.17139@korppi.cs.tut.fi>

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Andreas Prilop wrote:

> The validator suggests:
>
> | To show your readers that you have taken the care to create
> | an interoperable Web page, you may display this icon
> | on any page that validates.
> | <img src=... alt="Valid HTML 4.01 Frameset">

Interesting, isn't it? Note that it says: "on any page that validates".
So I can put it on an HTML 4.01 Strict page, or on a YuccaML page, right, 
provided just that it validates?

> This leads to two questions:
>
> - Should I put this <IMG> into the <NOFRAMES> sections?

That would appear to be the only way to include it into a frameset 
document. Maybe users of noframes-capable browsers, together with search 
engines, will appreciate the "Valid HTML 4.01 Frameset" text. But as the 
suggestion says, you can put it on any page that validates.

> - Which ALT text should I put into a *single* frame:
>  "Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional" or "Valid HTML 4.01 Frameset"?

The suggestion seems to say that you can put either of them, or perhaps 
both - you can put two icons on one page, can't you? The logical approach 
would seem to be to use text that corresponds to the doctype of the 
document in a frame, which is Transitional or maybe sometimes Strict,
unless it's itself a frameset. Wouldn't it be cool if the user could see 
an icon in each frame and immediately check, using conveniently the mouse 
to see the alt text as a tooltip, whether the frame is Transitional, 
Strict, or maybe Frameset?

-- 
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Friday, 26 August 2005 20:53:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:19 GMT