Re: Where is <BODY> supposed to go?

At 09:06 PM 1/17/2000 , Vidiot wrote:
>Run the following page through your validations checker:
>         www.vidiot.com/index.html
>The weblint portion of the report says that <BODY> can'r go where
>I have it placed.  If I move it further up, the validator complains
>about placement.  There appears to be no place that is safe for
><BODY>
>Since when is white not a legal color?

Weblint is old and (in my opinion) should be ignored often.  For
example, see http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hwg.org%2F&weblint=
where weblint complains about valid HTML 4.0 code.

>Since when are the attibutes that I have for the framesets illegal?
>Without framespacing, frameborder, etc, there would be frame borders
>around the frames and my design is better without them.  If they
>are not part of the HTML 4 language, then they should be.

Your tone implies you haven't looked up the HTML 4 specification
for frames...  Here's what it says the FRAME attribute can take:

<!ATTLIST FRAME
   %coreattrs;                          -- id, class, style, title --
   longdesc    %URI;          #IMPLIED  -- link to long description
                                           (complements title) --
   name        CDATA          #IMPLIED  -- name of frame for targetting --
   src         %URI;          #IMPLIED  -- source of frame content --
   frameborder (1|0)          1         -- request frame borders? --
   marginwidth %Pixels;       #IMPLIED  -- margin widths in pixels --
   marginheight %Pixels;      #IMPLIED  -- margin height in pixels --
   noresize    (noresize)     #IMPLIED  -- allow users to resize frames? --
   scrolling   (yes|no|auto)  auto      -- scrollbar or none --
   >

>A TYPE attribute for SCRIPT?  Since when.

Since HTML 4.0 at least, I suppose.  The TYPE should look like
this, as noted in the 4.0 Spec:

<SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript">

>I have the third edition
>of the O'Reilly Javascript book and there is no discusstion of
>a TYPE attribute for SCRIPT.

It sounds to me as if the Javascript book you are using is either
old (and doesn't reflect current specs) or is negligent in not
informing you of correct usage.

>Excuse me for being blunt, but if every page that I submit to the
>validation program is going to be rejected as having errors, then
>what good is the validation program?

I don't know what good it is for you.  Maybe it could make you
realize that what you're creating isn't valid HTML, and you might
realize that valid HTML is important for interoperability and
platform independence, two of the cornerstones of the web.

Maybe the validator would encourage you to read the HTML 4.0
spec or a good book about it?

>By this I mean, if web pages
>look better without frame borders, making pages 100% validation
>compliant is going to make those pages look bad.

You can turn off frame borders in HTML 4.0.

>I don't want
>frame borders, they look ugly.  If the attirbutes are not part of
>the 4.0 standard, as I mentioned, they should be.

It's very hard to take you seriously when you suggest additions
to the specification while still clearly showing that you don't
know what the current spec says.

>At this point in time, I have no idea how to make <BODY> compliant.
>Color me confused by the standard.

I suspect you're actually confused by the validator, not by the
standard, and specifically by weblint's inclusion with the
validator.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                   http://www.kynn.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet      http://www.idyllmtn.com/
Next Speaking Engagement -- SHARE at Anaheim   http://www.kynn.com/+share
Become AWARE of Web Accessibility!                  http://aware.hwg.org/

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 01:29:32 UTC