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

Re: is my web page valid for xhtml 1.0?

From: WD <ward@sama.ru>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:27:01 +0400
Message-ID: <000f01c52fe6$ac86dbf0$62de9cd5@hm>
To: <www-validator@w3.org>

Many thanks


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Dorward" <david@dorward.me.uk>
To: "WD" <ward@sama.ru>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: is my web page valid for xhtml 1.0?


> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:17:43AM +0400, WD wrote:
> >    Would you help me please?
> >     
> >    MS IE6 don`t understand JavaScript expression:
> >    for (var i=0; i &lt; 9; i++) {......}
> >    It is't understand &lt; in this context.
> 
> It is very unlikely that you are serving your XHTML as
> application/xhtml+xml (since IE isn't prompting you to download it),
> so you are presumably serving it as text/html and browsers are
> treating it as tag soup.
> 
> The <script> block is therefore being treated as CDATA even though you
> haven't explicitly tagged it as such and the entities are not being
> processed.
> 
> Go back and read http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.8 again. A read of
> http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml probably wouldn't go amiss either.
>      
> >    May I use both :
> 
> <snip code>
> 
> >    on my WEB page at the same time?
> 
> You can lie if you like. Its not going to look very good if people
> click on the link and get big red error messages though.
> 
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon is probably
> also worth a read.
> 
> >  Will be my document valid for XHTML 1.0 Transitional in fact???
> 
> No, it won't.
> 
> -- 
> David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 20:24:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:18 GMT