Re: [WSG] XHTML again
On 7 Jan 2006, at 3:35 pm, Lynne Pope wrote: On 1/7/06, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended' CSS from the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make IE/win behave. OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non- existent stylesheet', like I do at times) doesn't make it more valid - just hidden. Conditional statements are not hidden, they just do whatever you code them to do. They are a valid markup. Conditional Comments are indeed valid markup. The point here is that, it is a comment, and anything within a cc it is hidden from (X)HTML compliant browsers. Only IE for Windows can take a peak at it. Thus yes, style within a CC is hidden from the validators. BTW: non-valid CSS doesn't affect HTML/XHTML status/validity at all. True. However, if we are coding to standards then it pays to be aware of any coding errors in css. You can't look at each standard in a vacuum. Whatever your css contains won't affect the validity of your (X)HTML. Then, to what Standards are you coding your CSS : CSS 2.0, CSS 2.1 CSS3 ? CSS 2.0 is a hopeless mess, CSS 2.1 is a bit better but still full of contradictions and undefined behaviour. The only part of the whole CSS thing that is pretty stable is the CSS selectors module. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/ And when you validate a stylesheet, against what do you validate ? In my case you'd need to check against CSS 3, and even then, you better check against the respective docs (various versions) because the W3C validator doesn't know or support those (namespaces, mediaquerries, css-text amongst them). The text-justify property you mention in a previous message is included in one of those (draft) docs and currently only implemented by MS IE win. It does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE? This sounds a bit strange to me. Which source-code should be checked as HTML4.01? Given the fact that the validator is fed an XHTML1.1 page with the correct MIME-type by default, is it even possible to check that source-code as HTML? I would think not. Enforcing the validator wouldn't work - and it shouldn't since the source-code isn't 'HTML4.01 Anything' when it's served to the validator. And your point is? I made the comment that the site does not validate as HTML 4.01, did you see me say how I validated it? Anyone designing a site to render as one DOCTYPE in some browsers and another DOCTYPE for other browsers, and who wishes to have the pages validate against both DOCTYPES would, I assume, check the validation for both. This can be done in many ways, such as entering the source code, or in cases where the person looking at the code is sufficiently experienced, just looking can show there are errors. I manually validated 3 random pages from Bobby's site: accessing the page with an older browser, copy the source code and pasting that into the textarea of my local copy of the W3C validator (@v 0.7.1): all validated correctly as html 401 strict. Georg point is: if you send a url to the validator, it will validate against xhtml, because that is the way the data is sent to it (with mime type application xhtml+xml). Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.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 **
Re: [WSG] XHTML again
Lynne Pope wrote: The validators themselves tell you that they have limitations. A page can validate according to the W3C online service but, in fact, not be valid. I think Philippe covered the validity-points pretty well. It all comes down to how closely any developer wishes to adhere to standards and how much of a purist anyone is when it comes to correct coding ;) Oh, we can paste a valid example from the standards into a validator, and it may choke on it. So much for limitations. Think someone will have to purify the standards and the validators a bit more, before we announce purity based on them. Standards are pretty useful tools - when browsers adhere to them. Maybe they will - one day. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
I didn't want my first contribution to the group to be a comment on another person's website, but as you said you are learning Bob I thought you might find this helpful. The problem with browser sniffing is that you have to be very careful to serve the right information. At the moment, your site does not validate for css or for HTML 4.01. In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8. It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Regards,LynneOn 1/6/06, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The approach I use (I'm learning, incidentally)was triggered originally by Georg :write your page as XHTML ( 1.1 even) and serve it whilst testing as application/xhtml+xml.When it validates and there are no well formedness errors, you can serve it in any way you want/need, knowing that 'it's ready'.For anyone who hasn't seen it, a great way to actually use the resulting code is to use PHP to check the http_accept and insert the DTD header/mimetype as appropriate (see http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/scripting/mimetypes/I have used this approach on my site ( [1 ]below) and this serves the pages as html 4.01 to IE , and xhtml1.1 to 'modern browsers like FF, Opera, etc.I'm not sure of the real world value at this time, but certainly it is an excellent discipline in helping me write well formed pages.Best Regards, Bob McClellandCornwall (UK)[1]http://www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
- Messaggio originale - Da: Lynne In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8. It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Roberto Scano: It is no soo easy to change from text/html to application/xhtml+xml: you need to apply xml rules (es: xml prolog, xml declaration for stylesheets, Namespace, xml:lang instead of lang) and in text/html apply also recommendations in appendix c of xhtml 1.0. These are my two eurocents ;) ** 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
Hi Roberto, When I 'view source' in FF, I get the following: ?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' ? !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN' 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd' html xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' xml:lang='en' If I look in IE, I get this: !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN' 'http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd' html lang='en' Are you getting something different? Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: - Messaggio originale - Da: Lynne In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8. It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Roberto Scano: It is no soo easy to change from text/html to application/xhtml+xml: you need to apply xml rules (es: xml prolog, xml declaration for stylesheets, Namespace, xml:lang instead of lang) and in text/html apply also recommendations in appendix c of xhtml 1.0. These are my two eurocents ;) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
- Messaggio originale - Da: designer[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Roberto, When I 'view source' in FF, I get the following: [cut] Are you getting something different? Roberto: You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it ** 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
- Messaggio originale - Da: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: 06/01/06 14.26.37 A: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgwsg@webstandardsgroup.org Oggetto: Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply] - Messaggio originale - Da: designer[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Roberto, When I 'view source' in FF, I get the following: [cut] Are you getting something different? Roberto: You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** [Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica-Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.] ** 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: Roberto: You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it What's the point of defining the stylesheet both with the xml-stylesheet instruction AND the (valid, and clearly defined in XHTML 1.1) link element? As far as I was aware, both methods are just as acceptable. Additionally: what's the purpose of the conditional comment in this case? ?xml-stylesheet charset=utf-8 href=/css.asp?cssid=1amp;csstype=1 type=text/css media=all alternate=no ? !--[if IE] ?xml-stylesheet charset=utf-8 href=/css.asp?cssid=1amp;csstype=1 type=text/css media=all alternate=no ? ![endif]-- -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply]
- Messaggio originale - Da: Patrick H. Lauke[EMAIL PROTECTED] Inviato: 06/01/06 16.54.27 A: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgwsg@webstandardsgroup.org Oggetto: Re: [WSG] XHTML again - was:[Claiming compliance when a site doesn't' actually comply] Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: Roberto: You miss the css stylesheets as xml. Try this page for see the difference in the source code: http://www.fruibile.it What's the point of defining the stylesheet both with the xml-stylesheet instruction AND the (valid, and clearly defined in XHTML 1.1) link element? As far as I was aware, both methods are just as acceptable. Roberto: Yes, but this is suggested by xhtml 1.1 spec. Patrick: Additionally: what's the purpose of the conditional comment in this case? ?xml-stylesheet charset=utf-8 href=/css.asp?cssid=1amp;csstype=1 type=text/css media=all alternate=no ? !--[if IE] ?xml-stylesheet charset=utf-8 href=/css.asp?cssid=1amp;csstype=1 type=text/css media=all alternate=no ? ![endif]-- Roberto: Read it as For future ie releases or a bug that i need to fix ;) ** 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] XHTML again
Hi Lynne, Thanks for your comments. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it 'is' sent as text/html - that's the point. OK, it does say that it is application/xhtml+xml in the meta tag, but that is just ignored when it's sent with the correct mime type. Also, try as I might, I can't get it to be invalid when using the w3c checker. . . ?? If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagues will tell me? -- Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk Lynne Pope wrote: I didn't want my first contribution to the group to be a comment on another person's website, but as you said you are learning Bob I thought you might find this helpful. The problem with browser sniffing is that you have to be very careful to serve the right information. At the moment, your site does not validate for css or for HTML 4.01. In IE, your site shows meta http-equiv=Content-Type content=application/xhtml+xml; It needs to be sent with the text/html mime type. A little tweak to your php code and you will have it nailed ;) Regards, Lynne On 1/6/06, *designer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The approach I use (I'm learning, incidentally) was triggered originally by Georg : write your page as XHTML ( 1.1 even) and serve it whilst testing as application/xhtml+xml. When it validates and there are no well formedness errors, you can serve it in any way you want/need, knowing that 'it's ready'. For anyone who hasn't seen it, a great way to actually use the resulting code is to use PHP to check the http_accept and insert the DTD header/mimetype as appropriate (see http://www.workingwith.me.uk/articles/scripting/mimetypes/ I have used this approach on my site ( [1 ]below) and this serves the pages as html 4.01 to IE , and xhtml1.1 to 'modern browsers like FF, Opera, etc. I'm not sure of the real world value at this time, but certainly it is an excellent discipline in helping me write well formed pages. Best Regards, Bob McClelland Cornwall (UK) [1] http://www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk ** 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] XHTML again
Hi Bob,Your splash page validates in xhtml, but the rest of your site has css errors: Errors URI : http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/gam/altgam/altgam.cssLine: 6 Context : html Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper Line: 62 Context : #container Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaperIt does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE?Cheers,Lynne On 1/7/06, designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Lynne,Thanks for your comments.Unless I'm very much mistaken, it 'is' sent as text/html - that's thepoint. OK, it does say that it is application/xhtml+xml in the meta tag,but that is just ignored when it's sent with the correct mime type. Also, try as I might, I can't get it to be invalid when using the w3cchecker. . .??If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagueswill tell me?--Best Regards, Bob McClellandCornwall (UK)www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
Re: [WSG] XHTML again
designer wrote: If I'm missing something here, perhaps one of our learned colleagues will tell me? Bob, I don't think you are missing anything !important so far :-) Lynne Pope wrote: Your splash page validates in xhtml, but the rest of your site has css errors: Errors URI : http://www.rhh.myzen.co.uk/rhh/gam/altgam/altgam.css - Line: 6 Context : html Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper - Line: 62 Context : #container Property text-justify doesn't exist : newspaper Hope not :-) as that would be the same as if the CSS validator recognized the proprietary 'display: -moz-inline-box;' as valid. It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended' CSS from the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make IE/win behave. OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non-existent stylesheet', like I do at times) doesn't make it more valid - just hidden. BTW: non-valid CSS doesn't affect HTML/XHTML status/validity at all. It does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE? This sounds a bit strange to me. Which source-code should be checked as HTML4.01? Given the fact that the validator is fed an XHTML1.1 page with the correct MIME-type by default, is it even possible to check that source-code as HTML? I would think not. Enforcing the validator wouldn't work - and it shouldn't since the source-code isn't 'HTML4.01 Anything' when it's served to the validator. --- No wonder some web developers are confused, and others warn strongly against using XHTML. Even those who happen to know how XHTML may/should be made to work might find themselves sidelined for no good reasons at all :-) To exemplify... All the following are valid XHTML and can be validated as such: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.html http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xhtml http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03.xml ...they will even work as XHTML in XML compliant browsers. All the following are non-valid XHTML, and the validator will tell you so: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.html http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.xhtml http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_06_03-notvalid.xml ...only the first will survive in any browser - as tag-soup. Don't bother to check the CSS, as that isn't even supposed to pass validation. Also, unless one has a keen eye, it might be a little hard to figure out where all the 'IE/win-only garbage' is hidden away. The entire site these 6 almost identical pages are in, is a testbed for what works and what doesn't. The difference *may* be quite interesting to know at times, when dealing with buggy browsers. Even the validators are under constant attacks, and they are far from flawless :-) regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** 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] XHTML again
On 1/7/06, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not as easy to hide proprietary and 'not-yet-recommended' CSS from the validator, as it is with all the garbage often needed to make IE/win behave. OTOH: hiding something in a conditional comment (or in a 'non-existent stylesheet', like I do at times) doesn't make it more valid - just hidden. Conditional statements are not hidden, they just do whatever you code them to do. They are a valid markup. BTW: non-valid CSS doesn't affect HTML/XHTML status/validity at all. True. However, if we are coding to standards then it pays to be aware of any coding errors in css. You can't look at each standard in a vacuum. It does not validate at all as HTML 4.01 Strict - are you sure you are checking validation against that DOCTYPE? This sounds a bit strange to me. Which source-code should be checked as HTML4.01? Given the fact that the validator is fed an XHTML1.1 page with the correct MIME-type by default, is it even possible to check that source-code as HTML? I would think not. Enforcing the validator wouldn't work - and it shouldn't since the source-code isn't 'HTML4.01 Anything' when it's served to the validator. And your point is? I made the comment that the site does not validate as HTML 4.01, did you see me say how I validated it? Anyone designing a site to render as one DOCTYPE in some browsers and another DOCTYPE for other browsers, and who wishes to have the pages validate against both DOCTYPES would, I assume, check the validation for both. This can be done in many ways, such as entering the source code, or in cases where the person looking at the code is sufficiently experienced, just looking can show there are errors. The validators themselves tell you that they have limitations. A page can validate according to the W3C online service but, in fact, not be valid. It all comes down to how closely any developer wishes to adhere to standards and how much of a purist anyone is when it comes to correct coding ;) Cheers, Lynne ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
