- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 22:59:31 +0300 (EEST)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
- cc: awizard <awizard@bellsouth.net>
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007, David Dorward wrote: > HTML 4.01 Strict is most appropriate for the majority of documents > authored today. It might be recommendable for new documents, but the question was about code generated by FrontPage. Naturally this depends on FrontPage version and the way it has been used, but it's generally somewhat unproductive to try to validate the code as HTML 4.01 Strict. >> I use Tables in my FP HTML other wise it is as simple as I can get. >> I have Attributes like Bordercolor, Height, font, size, and color in my >> HTML Code, W3C also dont like these attributes > > They are either all either non-standard or deprecated. Presentation > should be achieved with CSS. There's a difference between nonstandard and deprecated, and validators as such don't take position on deprecation. (Admittedly, the W3C Validator responses are scattered with [literally] random links to authoring advice, often propagating the same ideas as you. But this is one of the fundamental flaws in it and not really a validator feature at all.) Using HTML 4.01 Transitional is thus more practical. Depending on the amount of _nonstandard_ markup, one might even start with a DTD referring to an extended document type that allows some common extensions (like bordercolor); see the "tag soup DTD" described at http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/own-dtd.html#tagsoup You might want to proceed piecewise towards HTML 4.01, removing first the oddest nonstandard attributes, etc., if you want. It might be a long way, though, and generally it's often easier to rewrite a page than to convert a wysiwyg editor's product into HTML 4.01 Strict. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2007 19:59:38 UTC