[WSG] Re: EMBED tag
Chris Keane writes: If it is the only thing causing a site not to validate, what harm is it really? Won't it push IE into quirks mode because it's not validating? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * No, that only happens if there's no doctype. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Re: EMBED tag
El mar, 11-05-2004 a las 22:54, east escribió: No, that only happens if there's no doctype. Or, if the DOCTYPE is somehow wrong. A (in)famous example are 'relative URI' DOCTYPES -- Manuel trabaja para Simplelógica, construcción web (+34) 985 22 12 65 http://simplelogica.net * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Re: EMBED tag
If it is the only thing causing a site not to validate, what harm is it really? Won't it push IE into quirks mode because it's not validating? No, that only happens if there's no doctype. Actually, IE also goes into quirks mode if any character appears *before* the doctype, or the doctype is incorrect or missing. That's why use of the xml prolog, while recommended by the W3C, is not a good idea. Here a cool article with more examples of different doctypes then you'll ever want to see: http://www.hut.fi/~hsivonen/doctype.html HTH, K. -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
