Click here to get back home

Re: is invalid html 4 strict?
 Home | NewsGroups | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now!
 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content
Subject Author Date
Re: is invalid html 4 strict? Jukka K. Korpela 06-21-2008
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on June 21, 2008, 1:43 pm
Please log in for more thread options
 Scripsit Lance Manyon:

> For it to validate, you have to put something in the
> <title></title>.

No you don't. (Of course, a title element with empty content is a bad
idea, but that has nothing to do with validation.)

Next time, considering at least testing your advice before posting it.
(Anyone who can read DTDs and therefore give informed advice on
validation can immediately see that your advice is wrong, of course.)

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


Posted by reporter on June 21, 2008, 2:14 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Scripsit Lance Manyon:
>
> > For it to validate, you have to put something in the
> > <title></title>.
>
> No you don't. (Of course, a title element with empty content is a bad
> idea, but that has nothing to do with validation.)
>
> Next time, considering at least testing your advice before posting it.
> (Anyone who can read DTDs and therefore give informed advice on
> validation can immediately see that your advice is wrong, of course.)
>
> --
> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

This post could have been more diplomatic.

Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on June 21, 2008, 2:43 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Scripsit reporter:

[...]
>> --
>> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>
> This post could have been more diplomatic.

Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which
wasn't worth sending even by e-mail. Since you use a fake name, I expect
your e-mail address to be potentially fake anyway, so I'm not sending
this personal message by e-mail - but I have a good reason.

If you don't know the elements of Usenet conduct, you should refrain
from giving advice on posting in public. Besides, these groups aren't
about diplomacy, and clueless technical advice does not deserve any
diplomatic moves.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


Posted by reporter on June 21, 2008, 6:26 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Scripsit reporter:
>
> [...]
>
> >> --
> >> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>
> > This post could have been more diplomatic.
>
> Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
> to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which
> wasn't worth sending even by e-mail. Since you use a fake name, I expect
> your e-mail address to be potentially fake anyway, so I'm not sending
> this personal message by e-mail - but I have a good reason.
>
> If you don't know the elements of Usenet conduct, you should refrain
> from giving advice on posting in public. Besides, these groups aren't
> about diplomacy, and clueless technical advice does not deserve any
> diplomatic moves.
>
> --
> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Perhaps I was wrong. YOU could not have been more diplomatic.

Posted by Jim Moe on June 22, 2008, 4:50 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On 06/21/08 03:26 pm, reporter wrote:
>> >> Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>>
>> > This post could have been more diplomatic.
>>
>> Thank you for the usual bogosity warning of fullquoting a message down
>> to the sig, followed by pointless off-topic personal advice, which [...]
>
> Perhaps I was wrong. YOU could not have been more diplomatic.

And you persist on wasting my time by not trimming you posts. You seem a
bit on the slow-learning side.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: is invalid html 4 strict? June 21, 2008, 6:15 pm
W3C HTML Validator Error - Invalid content-type November 13, 2004, 1:48 am
Why is this page invalid? June 25, 2007, 1:30 pm
Missing entitites - Invalid or not well-formed ? October 15, 2004, 3:15 am
Differences between HTML 4.01 Strict and HTML 4.01 Transitional? May 31, 2005, 7:13 pm
Help with a table using Strict HTML March 30, 2005, 7:13 pm
xhtml vs html 4 strict May 21, 2005, 5:23 pm
Preloading audio - possible in HTML 4 Strict January 11, 2005, 10:36 am
HTML 4.01 strict / transitional vs. XHTML 1.0 September 18, 2005, 3:10 pm
W3C Validator error?
is valid for doctype HTML 4.01 Strict		 April 21, 2005, 12:46 pm

Our other projects:

Art Dolls, Fairies and Mermaids - Sunnyfaces.net

Roy's Linux, Programming and Search Engines messages

1-Script XML SitemapXML Sitemap