Chris Stratford wrote:
You can use this DTD:
!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC XHTML 1.0 Strict
http://www.neester.com/DTD/xhtml-target.dtd;
I made it myself from a tutorial.
It is XHTML 1.0 Strict.
Are you sure that the Formal Public Identifier part of the DTD can
really look like that? I thought that
Mike,
Comes a bit late as I'm sure you've move on, but I think you would
still find this interesting.
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1070385285count=1
Cheers,
Chris.
On 12/11/2004, at 3:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have encountered alignment issues between our target browsers.
The code example
Geoff;
But still, strictly speaking, an
XML based document is bound to be more semantically correct because it
is
well formed.
Why? Are the semantics of the following deferent?
ul
liIce cream/li
liSprinkles/li
/ul
...
ul
liIce cream
liSprinkles
/ul
SGML and XML
Dean;
Then there is the whole Web Applications trend. Again, HTML and
XHTML are pretty much the same in functionality here, but if I'm
using an application on the Web then I want to make sure it is
well-formed and well-structured. I don't want a typo by a web
developer (such as leaving off an end
Every modern browser, including Mozilla and Safari, is much worse at
XHTML than at HTML. People tend to foolishly gloss over the transition
from one to the other, thinking that code you write for one will just
work when you switch to XHTML. That simply isnt true. If you look at
XHTML in both
On 07/10/2004, at 9:45 AM, Peter Firminger wrote:
(and it's debateable whether HTML 3.2 is either... By version
do they mean the language or the subset? HTML 3.2 is the latest
version of
HTML 3)
I suspect that they mean HTML4.
From the HTML 4 rec
W3C recommends that authors produce HTML 4
On 07/10/2004, at 10:07 AM, Geoff Deering wrote:
The reason being that if you are not closing all your tags it
can become a guessing game for the parser where the CSS declaration
may end
in various parts of the document.
It always strikes me that when using HTML4 you are at the mercy of the
Are there any parsers out there you explicitly trust to get it right
every
time? I don't.
I know of one, http://validator.w3.org/. Are you say though that User
Agents are generally better/fast at parsing/rendering valid XHTML than
they are valid HTML?
They may well do, but they are still
It seems that whenever I try to fix a problem in Mozilla, then IE
breaks.
There's a very good reason for that... Because you are using the xml
prolog,
and
I'm betting that if you remove
the xml prolog, IE will start breaking too.
and many more..
XML declaration is the correct name of the entity
I'm opposed to forking the list.
I second j.neen's suggestion for a tread-based forum.
This list is threaded..
http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg%40webstandardsgroup.org/
That is how my mail reader displays it it too. Maybe you could try mail
software which threads.
Also, I prefer an RSS feed of
Here is Safari's
http://developer.apple.com/internet/safari/safari_css.html
Cheers,
chris
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting
I thought XHTML transitional _is_ XML. In what way is XHTML
transitional is a less strict data format?
It's a transition. It's a half-way house between HTML 4 and XHTML as
it
is intended (XHTML Strict).
No its not. There is no such thing as a half-way house between HTML 4
and XHTML.
Sure there
Not sure what's happening. but when I delete the border-top property
from this rule the page behaves as expected in Safari.
#c {
height: 400px;
margin-left: 224px;
background-color: #fff;
/* border-top: 1px solid #537B8D; */
Tim Lucas wrote:
If you don't need to serve valid XML, and you can not systematically
serve well formed XML documents, then I recommend sticking with a less
strict data format (such as XHTML transitional).
XML is a strict data format and, like most, can't reliably be written
by hand without
On 05/05/2004, at 10:09 PM, Patrick Griffiths wrote:
I thought XHTML transitional _is_ XML. In what way is XHTML
transitional is a less strict data format?
It's a transition. It's a half-way house between HTML 4 and XHTML as it
is intended (XHTML Strict).
Are you saying that XHTML transitional is
On 05/05/2004, at 10:09 PM, Patrick Griffiths wrote:
I thought XHTML transitional _is_ XML. In what way is XHTML
transitional is a less strict data format?
It's a transition. It's a half-way house between HTML 4 and XHTML as it
is intended (XHTML Strict).
No its not. There is no such thing as a
So where is SVG in regard to Web Standards ?
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/
Besides the current recommendation there is a 1.2 revision currently in
working draft
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG12/.
Are many people using it for anything useful ?
I believe it has been adopted widely in the cartography
Have you considered using a href=#top.../a ?
Yes and that goes back to the root index page - as mentioned these
pages are
dynamic!
Are you using the BASE element?
#top is a reference to a local fragment, the page shouldn't reload
or load another page unless you have set a base URI.
...or am
Hugh,
I always put in the trailing semicolon and would ask that this practice
be adopted by any team I work in even though it is not required.
When I wasn't particular about putting it in, I found that when the CSS
was later edited by either myself or other maintainers that inevitably
a bug
The imitable Ian Hickson has some valid HTML to embed Macromedia Flash
files using only the OBJECT tag...
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2004Apr/0071.html
Cheers,
chris.
*
The discussion list for
I've used XSLT (and XSL:FO) to build small/medium/large 3rd party web
applications and the odd website since 2000. My experience is
completely opposite to yours; my brushes with XSLT have all been happy
ones.
I recently asked a company for which I worked on 3 such applications in
2001/2002 if
Simon Jessey wrote:
Interestingly, Ian Hickson says that styling a DL is difficult, and
that he
is having trouble coming up with solutions for dealing with it in
CSS3. I'm
not entirely sure what he means by that, since I have no more trouble
styling a DL than I do any other element.
Great! I
just fine.
Cheers,
Chris Bentley
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*
23 matches
Mail list logo
