[Curse that Yahoo Mail spell checker. Take 2]
Agreed. That is where Google took me after I first tried to run the W3C
conformance tester against a Struts generated page. Applying the
or the tags did not cause Struts
to close the tags or to remove the name attribute from the form
tag (which
Agreed. That is where GoGoogleook me after I first tried to run the W3C
conformance tester against a Struts generated page. Applying the
or the tags did not cause Struts
to close the tags or to remove the name attribute from the form
tag (which I am not advocating anyway).
If someone could pr
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 17:09, D. Stimits wrote:
> Martin Wegner wrote:
> > The Struts doc does suggest that should cause the
> > tag to be XHTML compliant but for some reason it does not. The W3C XHTML
> > validator also does not like the Struts output of the elements.
> > Struts does not
Niall,
I would agree with you until a customer makes XHTML conformance a
requirement in the contract. Strict XHTML conformance is very important
to some customers, for various reasons.
As previously posted, getting rid of the "name" attribute on the
tag could be troublesome. But closing the t
Martin Wegner wrote:
The Struts doc does suggest that should cause the
tag to be XHTML compliant but for some reason it does not. The W3C XHTML
validator also does not like the Struts output of the elements.
Struts does not close them: .
This might help as a reference:
http://struts.apache.or
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 13:13, Martin Wegner wrote:
> The Struts doc does suggest that should cause the
> tag to be XHTML compliant but for some reason it does not. The W3C XHTML
> validator also does not like the Struts output of the elements.
> Struts does not close them: .
>
Well, then,
The Struts doc does suggest that should cause the
tag to be XHTML compliant but for some reason it does not. The W3C XHTML
validator also does not like the Struts output of the elements.
Struts does not close them: .
--Marty
--- Derek Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 D
At 2:31 PM + 12/14/04, Niall Pemberton wrote:
Joe, maybe you were thinking of this one:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15023
No, but that's just because I didn't remember it ;-)
That one generated a lot of discussion, so apparently people think
it's important. I have to adm
On Tuesday 14 December 2004 08:51, William Ferguson wrote:
> I noticed that the html generated form the tag is not valid
> HTML according to the W3C validation service (http://validator.w3.org). It
> generates a tag with a 'name' attribute which has been deprecated.
>
> Since I'm striving to conf
atall. There's no need to use it
with javascript anymore.
Daniel.
> -Original Message-
> From: William Ferguson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 December 2004 13:30
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Generating valid HTML from
Joe, maybe you were thinking of this one:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15023
Niall
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Germuska" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Generating valid HT
At 7:46 AM -0600 12/14/04, Joe Germuska wrote:
At 10:51 PM +1000 12/14/04, William Ferguson wrote:
I noticed that the html generated form the tag is not valid HTML
according to the W3C validation service (http://validator.w3.org).
It generates a tag with a 'name' attribute which has been deprecat
At 10:51 PM +1000 12/14/04, William Ferguson wrote:
I noticed that the html generated form the tag is not valid HTML
according to the W3C validation service (http://validator.w3.org).
It generates a tag with a 'name' attribute which has been deprecated.
Since I'm striving to conform to relevant s
Well,
the w3C validator certainly considers it to be invalid and is validating
against the HTML 4.01 spec which came into being in December 1999.
So I'd be inclined to say that 5 years is more than enough deprecation
notice.
William
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is i
Is it the opinion of others that "deprecated" is semantically equivalent
to "invalid"?
Dennis
"William Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12/14/2004 07:51 AM
Please respond to
"Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
Subject
Generating valid HTML from tag
15 matches
Mail list logo
