Won't validate...why not? - Page 4

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Won't validate...why not?

While sitting in a puddle Leonard Blaisdell scribbled in the mud:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Long push in a wheelchair. I'm lazy.

Duende (better now)
If you wear a smile,
they think you really know.

Re: Won't validate...why not?

While the city slept, Liz (invalid@v-liz.co.uk) feverishly typed...

[Browsers on RiscOS]

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Tables for presentation have not been deprecated, as they were never
intended for this purpose in the first place. They are for grouping tabular
data. Presentational HTML itself has been deprecated though.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Quoted text here. Click to load it

No there isn't - rather you need to accept that properly authored code is
not going to render as nicely on your system as it will on more
standards-compliant software available for other OS's (although properly
authored code *should* degrade gracefully). Instead of asking the entire web
development community to take a step backwards for your benefit, maybe you
should be asking the developers of your UA's to take a few steps forward.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

As I understand it, the Transitional doctype is a "grace" doctype, to assist
developers who may have a lot of legacy documents to convert to the current
standards. Think of it as a halfway house where you can get your documents
to a certain level of validation as quickly as possible before taking the
next leap to Strict code. It is still only intended as a temporary measure -
the W3C to not expect you to get your legacy pages to Transitional
validation and then leave them as they are, you do also need to go for the
next stage. Neither is it intended to be an "easier" doctype for people to
code new documents to because they can't get their heads around producing
Strict code. Again, this is how I understand it, based on a document I read
some years ago. YMMV.


Nigel Moss
Mail address not valid. nigel@DOG.nigenet.org.uk, take the DOG. out!
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is very, very busy!

Re: Won't validate...why not?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I have *not* asked the entire development community to take a step backwards.
As you can clearly read, I said "There is clearly a need for me, and other
RiscOS users, to use Transitional."  I have said more than once in this
thread that I *don't* expect other people to do likewise. I also said earlier
in the thread that I have often complained in the RiscOS lists about
lack of development of browsers (they think I'm a troll!), but I can't
actually *force* someone to write one if they don't want to. It's thought to
be probably commercially unviable, because so many of the geeky-types don't
care what a page looks like as long as it has the info that they wouldn't
pay for a better browser anyway! I have every sympathy with the students who
are writing the pd one from scratch for it not being their top priority.
And I can't program and don't have the time or inclination to learn.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's how I understand it too.
Who said anything about 'not being able to get their heads around producing
Strict code'?
But you can't expect me or others like me to go around preparing pages which
look rubbish on our browsers. That's totally unreasonable. For everyone
else, I'd just rather they didn't have sites which fail when we want to buy
something: to my mind, if Amazon (up 'til now, the recent phenomenon is
worrying) Land's End and Victoria's Secret* can do it, everyone can. I hate
it when I spend 20 or 30 minutes on a site choosing an order and failing at
the very last hurdle.  :-(

(*I have to admit that I was astonished that I was successful making an
order at VS: they don't actively market in the UK and I'd bet I was the
first RiscOS customer they've ever had. Certainly I've never seen it in a
list of RiscOS friendly sites - but it will be now!)



Virtual Liz now at http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
"I speak of Africa and golden joys"

Re: Won't validate...why not?


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Except when the writer doesn't know enough about CSS and has to resort
to some clunky code.

I know a fair bit about CSS but don't know enough and don't have the
time to learn everything all at once - I try to learn another bit
every week and am working towards the strict standard but will fall
back to transitional when needed.

 <A message to top posters.  Type your reply here>

Never be afraid to try something new.  Remember that a lone amateur
built the Ark.  A large group of professionals built the Titanic.

Re: Won't validate...why not?

Duende wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Transitional was created to make transition from earlier versions of HTML
(particularly 3.x) easier. As HTML 4.x has been around for nearly seven
years, I think it's safe to say that the transition phase is over.

Also, from the HTML 4.0 spec:
| We recommend that authors write documents that conform to the strict DTD
| rather than the other DTDs defined by this specification.

Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me  ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./toad_the_wet_sprocket/ps/08_walk_on_the_ocean.ogg

Site Timeline