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)
Forwarded message 1
§eeÝhing13 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