Re: [WSG] Validation

[Joseph Ortenzi]

You can have standards compliant Flash instances (even though the  
content of the flash swf itself may possibly not be standards- 
compliant itself) without JavaScript.


http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/

Is one source for this information.

Joe

On Jul 03, 2008, at 17:30, Joseph Taylor wrote:

Many parts of the  tag can make a validator upset -  
especially the  portion.  You're best bet is to add the flash  
using javascript via one of the popular scripts like swfobject, ufo  
etc...


Joseph R. B. Taylor
/Designer / Developer/
--
Sites by Joe, LLC
/"Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design"/
Phone: (609) 335-3076
Fax: (866) 301-8045
Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Fuji kusaka wrote:


Hi everyone,

I have a flash animation in my webpage and this causes a big  
problem when i have to validate the page.


Can someone help me out?
--
Fuji kusaka
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***< 
joe.vcf>


==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation

[Joseph Ortenzi]

No problem, what's your budget?

;-)

Joe

On Jul 03, 2008, at 17:20, Hassan Schroeder wrote:


Fuji kusaka wrote:

I have a flash animation in my webpage and this causes a big  
problem when i have to validate the page.

Can someone help me out?


Hopefully: 

--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

 dream.  code.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



==
Joe Ortenzi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.typingthevoid.com



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation

[Joseph Taylor]

Many parts of the  tag can make a validator upset - especially 
the  portion.  You're best bet is to add the flash using 
javascript via one of the popular scripts like swfobject, ufo etc...


Joseph R. B. Taylor
/Designer / Developer/
--
Sites by Joe, LLC
/"Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design"/
Phone: (609) 335-3076
Fax: (866) 301-8045
Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Fuji kusaka wrote:


Hi everyone,

I have a flash animation in my webpage and this causes a big problem 
when i have to validate the page.


Can someone help me out?
--
Fuji kusaka
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***begin:vcard
fn:Joseph Taylor
n:Taylor;Joseph
org:Sites by Joe, LLC
adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Designer / Developer
tel;work:609-335-3076
tel;fax:886-301-8045
tel;home:609-886-9660
tel;cell:609-335-3076
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://sitesbyjoe.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [WSG] Validation

[Hassan Schroeder]

Fuji kusaka wrote:

I have a flash animation in my webpage and this causes a big problem 
when i have to validate the page.


Can someone help me out?


Hopefully: 

--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-621-3445   === http://webtuitive.com

  dream.  code.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation

[Samuel Santos]

Hi Fuji,

Take a look at http://www.swffix.org/.


On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Fuji kusaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have a flash animation in my webpage and this causes a big problem when i
> have to validate the page.
>
> Can someone help me out?
> --
> Fuji kusaka
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***




-- 
Samuel Santos
http://www.samaxes.com/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation

[Matijs]

Google is your friend: SWFObject2



On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Fuji kusaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have a flash animation in my webpage and this causes a big problem when i
> have to validate the page.
>
> Can someone help me out?
> --
> Fuji kusaka
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation

[David Dorward]

On 3 Jul 2008, at 17:01, Fuji kusaka wrote:
I have a flash animation in my webpage and this causes a big problem  
when i have to validate the page.


Can someone help me out?


http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#faq-flash

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Validation

[Fuji kusaka]

Hi everyone,

I have a flash animation in my webpage and this causes a big problem when i
have to validate the page.

Can someone help me out?
-- 
Fuji kusaka


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation

[Fuji kusaka]

Cool this work perfectlythx

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Tatham Oddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Fuji,
>
>
>
> It is because it is inline script, which the validator is trying to parse.
>
>
>
> Change this:
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Your script here ...
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> to:
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> /*<![CDATA[*/
>
> Your script here ...
>
> /*]]>*/
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> (Note the additional two lines wrapping it)
>
>
>
> More info at: http://javascript.about.com/library/blxhtml.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Tatham Oddie
>
> call:+61414275989, call:+61280113982, skype:tathamoddie,
> msn:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tatham.oddie.com.au
>
>
>
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> Behalf Of *Fuji kusaka
> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 June 2008 4:30 PM
> *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> *Subject:* [WSG] Validation
>
>
>
> Can someone help me out with this validation?
>
> this is a javascript for my menu which is inside my html page.
>
>
> *Line 154, Column 39*: document type does not allow element "li" here.
>
> $back = $('* class="left">').appendTo
>
> ✉ <http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html?uri=;errmsg_id=64#errormsg>
>
> The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed.
> This could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a
> "style" element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two
> elements that overlap (which is not allowed).
>
> One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML
> documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can
> create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags
> for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the
> parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the
> "body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported
> error).
>
>
>
> --
> Fuji kusaka
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>



-- 
Fuji kusaka

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation

[Seona Bellamy]

At a guess, I'd say that the problem is caused by having your
javascript in the head of your document, which makes the validator try
to parse it (and so find 's in the head, where no 's should
be).

Simplest solution would be to move your javascript into an external
file and just link it into the head instead.

Cheers,

Seona.

2008/6/19 Fuji kusaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can someone help me out with this validation?
>
> this is a javascript for my menu which is inside my html page.
>
>
> Line 154, Column 39: document type does not allow element "li" here.
>
> $back = $(' class="left">').appendTo
>
> ✉
>
> The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed. This
> could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a "style"
> element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two elements
> that overlap (which is not allowed).
>
> One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML
> documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can
> create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags
> for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the
> parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the
> "body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported
> error).
>
> --
> Fuji kusaka
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Validation

[Tatham Oddie]

Fuji,

 

It is because it is inline script, which the validator is trying to parse.

 

Change this:

 

 



Your script here ...



 

 

to:

 

 



/*<![CDATA[*/

Your script here ...

/*]]>*/



 

 

(Note the additional two lines wrapping it)

 

More info at: http://javascript.about.com/library/blxhtml.htm

 

 

Thanks,

 

Tatham Oddie

  call:+61414275989,   
call:+61280113982,   skype:tathamoddie,   msn:[EMAIL PROTECTED],  <http://tatham.oddie.com.au/> 
tatham.oddie.com.au

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fuji kusaka
Sent: Thursday, 19 June 2008 4:30 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] Validation

 

Can someone help me out with this validation?

this is a javascript for my menu which is inside my html page.


Line 154, Column 39: document type does not allow element "li" here.

$back = $('').appendTo

 <http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html?uri=;errmsg_id=64#errormsg> ✉ 

The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed. This 
could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a "style" 
element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two elements that 
overlap (which is not allowed). 

One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML documents. 
Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can create 
cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags for "meta" 
and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the parser to 
infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the "body" section 
(where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported error). 

 

-- 
Fuji kusaka 
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Validation

[Fuji kusaka]

Can someone help me out with this validation?

this is a javascript for my menu which is inside my html page.


*Line 154, Column 39*: document type does not allow element "li" here.

$back = $('*').appendTo

 ✉ 

The element named above was found in a context where it is not allowed. This
could mean that you have incorrectly nested elements -- such as a "style"
element in the "body" section instead of inside "head" -- or two elements
that overlap (which is not allowed).

One common cause for this error is the use of XHTML syntax in HTML
documents. Due to HTML's rules of implicitly closed elements, this error can
create cascading effects. For instance, using XHTML's "self-closing" tags
for "meta" and "link" in the "head" section of a HTML document may cause the
parser to infer the end of the "head" section and the beginning of the
"body" section (where "link" and "meta" are not allowed; hence the reported
error).

-- 
Fuji kusaka

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation questions

[David Hucklesby]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:34:05 +1000, Taco Fleur wrote:
>
> I have an error where it says "document type does not allow element "OL" here"
> The ol tag is within a  I don't understand, is this not 
> allowed?
>
Pass.

> I have an error where it says "end tag for element "P" which is not open." 
> The  tag
> is actually within javascript, within the 

Re: [WSG] Validation questions

[David Hucklesby]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:34:05 +1000, Taco Fleur wrote:
>
> I have an error where it says "document type does not allow element "OL" here"
> The ol tag is within a  I don't understand, is this not 
> allowed?
>
Pass.

> I have an error where it says "end tag for element "P" which is not open." 
> The  tag
> is actually within javascript, within the 

RE: [WSG] Validation questions

[Taco Fleur]

Hi,

No actually not using XHTML. It's STRICT 4.01 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Christian Montoya
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2007 3:11 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Validation questions

On Nov 26, 2007 10:34 PM, Taco Fleur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I have an error where it says "end tag for element "P" which is not open."
> The  tag is actually within javascript, within the 

RE: [WSG] Validation questions

[Taco Fleur]

Hi,

> This sounds like one of those 'its much easier if you show us the code' 
things :)

Yes, its development, don't want Google to pick up on it.

> Move the '' into the js too.

It needs to be inline due to coding framework used, the following is the
code:
if ( myArray.length == 0 ) {
myTarget.innerHTML = 'No suggestions found';
return false;
}

> Perhaps have 'openThingy' and 'closeThingy' functions?




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Validation questions

[Taco Fleur]

Hi, yes, am using STRICT doctype
OK, if I understand this correctly, all I need to do to fix it is surround
it with a DIV.

Cheers 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Bryan GARNETT-LAW
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2007 2:21 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Validation questions

Are you using a STRICT doctype?  If so,  tags can only contain block
level elements.

http://24ways.org/2005/transitional-vs-strict-markup



This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must
not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received
it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any
record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the
opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no
liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

CRICOS IPC 00279B


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Validation questions

[Christian Montoya]

On Nov 26, 2007 10:34 PM, Taco Fleur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I have an error where it says "end tag for element "P" which is not open."
> The  tag is actually within javascript, within the 

Re: [WSG] Validation questions

[Lea de Groot]

Hey Taco!

This sounds like one of those 'its much easier if you show us the code' 
things :)
Write a stripped down version, if its Things You Must Not Show The 
Public ;)
(And often stripping it down will give that marvellous illumination 
that fixes the problem :))

> I have an error where it says "document type does not allow element "OL"
> here"
> The ol tag is within a  I don't understand, is this not
> allowed?

Could the OL be occurring within an inline element?
That would not validate.

> I have an error where it says "end tag for element "P" which is not open."
> The  tag is actually within javascript, within the 

RE: [WSG] Validation questions

[Bryan GARNETT-LAW]

Are you using a STRICT doctype?  If so,  tags can only contain
block level elements.

http://24ways.org/2005/transitional-vs-strict-markup



This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not 
disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in 
error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of 
it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of 
Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for 
the accuracy of the information provided.

CRICOS IPC 00279B


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Validation questions

[Taco Fleur]

Hello all,

I have some validation issues presented to me by http://validator.w3.org and
I'm hoping someone can shed a bit more light on them.

I have an error where it says "document type does not allow element "OL"
here"
The ol tag is within a  I don't understand, is this not
allowed?

I have an error where it says "end tag for element "P" which is not open."
The  tag is actually within javascript, within the 

Re: [WSG] Validation problem

[Jon Gunderson]

The Mozilla/Firefox accessibility extension provides a means
to view labels or lack of labels from with Mozilla or Firefox.

http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/software/mozilla/

Jon



 Original message 
>Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:58:12 +0100
>From: Kim Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
>Subject: Re: [WSG] Validation problem  
>To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
>
>Excellent. Thanks everyone... and why didn't I ask before!
>
>Kim Kruse wrote:
>
>> When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php
through Cynthia 
>> validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3
and I just 
>> can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to
me? Thanks a lot
>>
>
>-- 
>
>
>Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
>
>Kim Kruse
>-
>http://www.mouseriders.dk
>
>
>**
>The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>**
>


Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
and 
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Disability Resources and Education Services (DRES)

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248
Cell: (217) 714-6313

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/


**
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] Validation problem

[Patrick Lauke]

> McIvor Lee

> The phrasing of the Cynthia results page suggests that there 
> are alternative
> methods to pass this particular checkpoint without using a 
> label, but I don't
> know of one.

Adding a title attribute to the form element (in this case,
the SELECT) is one of these alternatives.

P

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk

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] Validation problem

[Kim Kruse]

Excellent. Thanks everyone... and why didn't I ask before!

Kim Kruse wrote:

When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php through Cynthia 
validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3 and I just 
can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks a lot




--


Med venlig hilsen/Best regards

Kim Kruse
-
http://www.mouseriders.dk


**
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] Validation problem

[Darren West]

Opps, and associated the label with and id. For instance:

Please choose
   

Daz

On 01/03/06, Darren West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Kim,
>
> You need to associate a label * with your select element. For instance:
>
> 
>   
>
> *  Please choose
>
>   
> Vælg her
> 
> Sort/Grøn 
> Hvid/Blå
> 
> 
> Sæt accesskeys
> 
>   
>   
>   
>   
> 
>
> Substituting 'Please choose' with something indicative of the select
> elements choices.
>
> Daz
>
>
> On 01/03/06, Kim Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php through Cynthia
> > validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3 and I just
> > can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks a lot
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
> >
> > Kim Kruse
> > -
> > http://www.mouseriders.dk
> >
> >
> > **
> > The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> >
> >  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> >  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> > **
> >
> >
>
**
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] Validation problem

[Johannes Reiss]

When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php through Cynthia 
validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3 and I just 
can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks a lot


sorry for my last Mail:

must be something like:

NN:

http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Validation problem

[Johannes Reiss]

Hi,

When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php through Cynthia validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3 
and I just can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks a lot

   
   Vælg her...=> must be something like:for="xy">NN: 
   Vælg her...best regardsjohannes 



**
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] Validation problem

[McIvor Lee]

Hi Kim,

If you use a label element with that particular SELECT field (the one named
"select"), then that should solve it.

The phrasing of the Cynthia results page suggests that there are alternative
methods to pass this particular checkpoint without using a label, but I don't
know of one.

Hope that helps.

Lee

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.chibukustudio.com



Kim Kruse  (01/03/2006  11:05):
>When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php through Cynthia
>validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3 and I just
>can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks a lot
>
>--
>
>
>Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
>
>Kim Kruse
>-
>http://www.mouseriders.dk
>
>
>**
>The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>**
>




**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
All incoming and outgoing e-mails are monitored for the presence of 
profanity and racist remarks, pornographic, sexually explicit or obscene 
material, and unsolicited content or spam.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
City of Newcastle website:-  http://www.newcastle.gov.uk
Newcastle Schools website:- http://www.newcastle-schools.org.uk
Competitive City:- http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/compcity
Visit NewcastleGateshead:- http://www.visitnewcastle.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] Validation problem

[Darren West]

Hi Kim,

You need to associate a label * with your select element. For instance:


  

*  Please choose

  
Vælg her

Sort/Grøn 
Hvid/Blå


Sæt accesskeys

  
  
  
  


Substituting 'Please choose' with something indicative of the select
elements choices.

Daz


On 01/03/06, Kim Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php through Cynthia
> validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3 and I just
> can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks a lot
>
> --
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
>
> Kim Kruse
> -
> http://www.mouseriders.dk
>
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>
**
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] Validation problem

[Ian Anderson]

Kim Kruse wrote:
When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php through Cynthia 
validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3 and I just 
can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks a lot


You don't have a label for the select menu on the left hand side. You 
need to have a text label for every form element and ideally associate 
it with the relevant form control using an ID in the form control and 
for="theID" in the label tag around the label text.


HTH

Cheers

Ian


--
_
zStudio - Web development and accessibility
http://zStudio.co.uk

Snippetz.net - Online code library
File, manage and re-use your code snippets & links
http://snippetz.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
**

[WSG] Validation problem

[Kim Kruse]

When I run this site http://mouseriders.dk/index.php through Cynthia 
validator (level 1,2,3)  it fails Priority 2 - forms 12.4.3 and I just 
can't figure out why. Could someone please explain it to me? Thanks a lot


--


Med venlig hilsen/Best regards

Kim Kruse
-
http://www.mouseriders.dk


**
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] validation error - blockquote

[Mordechai Peller]

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

You need to have a block level container inside your 
blockquote...can't just have pure content. So, for instance:



here's the quote



While that's true for XHTML, it's not the case for HTML.
**
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] validation error - blockquote

[tee]

Hi Patrick, thanks a lot. This totally makes sense.

tee



You need to have a block level container inside your  
blockquote...can't just have pure content. So, for instance:



here's the quote







A second thought. Can you point me to articles (non-w3c site) that  
explain the use of block quote. I wanted to make sure I fully  
understand it.

Thanks!
tee
**
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] validation error - blockquote

[tee]

Hi Patrick, thanks a lot. This totally makes sense.

tee


You need to have a block level container inside your  
blockquote...can't just have pure content. So, for instance:



here's the quote



--

**
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] validation error - blockquote

[Patrick H. Lauke]

tee wrote:

Hi can someone help me to understand this:
Is blockquote not allow here?



html:
...
...
...
...
...
...


You need to have a block level container inside your blockquote...can't 
just have pure content. So, for instance:



here's the quote



--
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
**

[WSG] validation error - blockquote

[tee]

Hi can someone help me to understand this:
Is blockquote not allow here?


error message read:
 You have used character data somewhere it is not permitted to  
appear. Mistakes that can cause this error include putting text  
directly in the body of the document without wrapping it in a  
container element (such as a aragraph) or forgetting to quote  
an attribute value (where characters such as "%" and "/" are common,  
but cannot appear without surrounding quotes).


html:
...
...
...
...
...
...


thanks!

tee
**
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] Validation error question for XHTML Strict

[tee]

> You misunderstood that a bit: It must be the direct contents of one of
> the elements listed - no elements in between.
> You currently have
> 
>   div > form > input
> 
> But the input need to be contained in one of the listed elements - for
> example like this:
> 
>   form > div > input
> 
> It's a question of direct parent, not ancestor.

Thanks all, it makes sense now. Boy I am so grate I asked.

tee

**
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] Validation error question for XHTML Strict

[liorean]

On 5/6/05, tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it is in the div
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> 
> blah blah blah 
> 
>  item name
>  item name
> 
> 

You misunderstood that a bit: It must be the direct contents of one of
the elements listed - no elements in between.
You currently have 

div > form > input

But the input need to be contained in one of the listed elements - for
example like this:

form > div > input

It's a question of direct parent, not ancestor.
-- 
David "liorean" Andersson
http://liorean.web-graphics.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] Validation error question for XHTML Strict

[Roger Johansson]

On 6 maj 2005, at 08.01, tee wrote:
But it is in the div
Example:



You need a block level element _inside_ the form element:




/Roger
--
http://www.456bereastreet.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] Validation error question for XHTML Strict

[tee]

But it is in the div

Example:



blah blah blah 

 item name
 item name




tee
> From: "Kwok Ting Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:49:43 +1000
> To: 
> Subject: RE: [WSG] Validation error question for XHTML Strict
> 
>  has to be wrapped in a block level tag of some sort, e.g. ,
> ,  etc.
> 
> So you'd use:   or  or
>  (very simplified)
> 
> Kwok-Ting
> 
> 
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 

**
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] Validation error question for XHTML Strict

[Kwok Ting Lee]

 has to be wrapped in a block level tag of some sort, e.g. ,
,  etc.  

So you'd use:   or  or
 (very simplified)

Kwok-Ting



**
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] Validation error question for XHTML Strict

[liorean]

On 5/6/05, tee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> document type does not allow element "input" here; missing one of "p", "h1",
> "h2", "h3", "h4", "h5", "h6", "div", "pre", "address", "fieldset", "ins",
> "del" start-tag
> 
> I do not understand at all.

Another way to say it: The element that wraps the input MUST be one of
the above listed. Those are the only elements that allow input elments
in their contents. You probably have your input element wrapped
directly in your form element - you need to insert one of the
mentioned elements as the parent of your input element.
-- 
David "liorean" Andersson
http://liorean.web-graphics.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
**

[WSG] Validation error question for XHTML Strict

[tee]

I started using XHTML Strict few months back, and this particular validation
error keep coming back to me when working on form and my dirty trick to
solve the error is switching that particular page to XHTML Transitional. It
has work fine but I guess it's time for me to really look for an answer.

I did a couple search on Google few months ago when I first encounter this
error but cannot find any solution. Maybe there is answer on the W3C site
but I couldn't find either.



The error message the W3C validator gave me

document type does not allow element "input" here; missing one of "p", "h1",
"h2", "h3", "h4", "h5", "h6", "div", "pre", "address", "fieldset", "ins",
"del" start-tag 

I do not understand at all.


Regards,

tee

**
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] validation errors

[Andrew Hawthorne]

Hi Helen,
In the link for the consumer's association change the ampersand to the  
html entity for ampersand (&)  and try validation again. The 
validator is trying to identify a system identifier '&catId...' and 
because it hasn't been terminated with a semicolon, it generates all 
those other errors.

just like this.
   http://www.choice.com.au/defaultView.aspx?id=102314&catId=100165
Andrew
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I have a page in the site I am working on
(http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/wip/sbi240/module3/agriculture.html) that
won't validate because of an external link I have to the Australian
Consumers' Association -
http://www.choice.com.au/defaultView.aspx?id=102314&catId=100165
I'm getting these sorts of errors
Line 298, column 70: cannot generate system identifier for general entity
"catId"
Line 298, column 70: general entity "catId" not defined and no default
entity
Line 298, column 75: reference not terminated by REFC delimiter
Line 298, column 75: reference to external entity in attribute value
Is there any way to get the page to validate?
Any help is much appreciated.
Thank you
Helen
***
Helen Rysavy
Web Designer, Teaching & Learning Development
Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory 0909
Tel: 8946 7779 Mobile: 0403 290 842
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cdu.edu.au
CRICOS Provider No: 00300K
***
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

 

**
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] validation errors

[John Horner]

http://www.choice.com.au/defaultView.aspx?id=102314&catId=100165
I'm getting these sorts of errors
Line 298, column 70: cannot generate system identifier for general entity
"catId"
You need to replace the "&" character in the URL with "&". The 
short version of why this is a problem is "in HTML, & followed by a 
string of characters is a character entity, like é for an e 
with an accent". The validator "thinks" you've used an unknown entity.

   "Have You Validated Your Code?"
John Horner(+612 / 02) 9333 3488
Senior Developer, ABC Online  http://www.abc.net.au/

**
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] validation errors

[Sigurd Magnusson]

This needs to be rewritten as:
http://www.choice.com.au/defaultView.aspx?id=102314&catId=100165

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I have a page in the site I am working on
(http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/wip/sbi240/module3/agriculture.html) that
won't validate because of an external link I have to the Australian
Consumers' Association -
http://www.choice.com.au/defaultView.aspx?id=102314&catId=100165
I'm getting these sorts of errors
Line 298, column 70: cannot generate system identifier for general entity
"catId"
Line 298, column 70: general entity "catId" not defined and no default
entity
Line 298, column 75: reference not terminated by REFC delimiter
Line 298, column 75: reference to external entity in attribute value
Is there any way to get the page to validate?
Any help is much appreciated.
Thank you
Helen
***
Helen Rysavy
Web Designer, Teaching & Learning Development
Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory 0909
Tel: 8946 7779 Mobile: 0403 290 842
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cdu.edu.au
CRICOS Provider No: 00300K
***
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
 

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] validation errors

[Helen . Rysavy]

Hi

I have a page in the site I am working on
(http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/wip/sbi240/module3/agriculture.html) that
won't validate because of an external link I have to the Australian
Consumers' Association -
http://www.choice.com.au/defaultView.aspx?id=102314&catId=100165

I'm getting these sorts of errors

Line 298, column 70: cannot generate system identifier for general entity
"catId"
Line 298, column 70: general entity "catId" not defined and no default
entity
Line 298, column 75: reference not terminated by REFC delimiter
Line 298, column 75: reference to external entity in attribute value

Is there any way to get the page to validate?

Any help is much appreciated.

Thank you
Helen

***
Helen Rysavy
Web Designer, Teaching & Learning Development
Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory 0909
Tel: 8946 7779 Mobile: 0403 290 842
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.cdu.edu.au
CRICOS Provider No: 00300K
***


**
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] Validation of CSS

[Jan Brasna]

CSS doesn't have strict separation of versions. The validator should 
check only "well-formness" of it.
That's certainly not what the W3 validator does.
As I wrote... It *should*. However the current version doesn't do it and 
validates it against CSS 2.1 (AFAIK)

--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Validation of CSS

[John Horner]

CSS doesn't have strict separation of versions. The validator should 
check only "well-formness" of it.
That's certainly not what the W3 validator does.
The example which prompted this is "display:inline-block". If I 
validate a file with that in it, I get this:

Errors
* Line: 8 Context : .myclass
Invalid number : display inline-block is not a display value : inline-block
If I know how, I can
1) go back to the validator page
2) choose advanced options
3) choose CSS Version 3 from the TEN different options available
and it will tell me it's valid.
Note that one of the ten options is "No special profile" and that too 
tells me it's an error...

What prompted this question was me trying to spread that message that 
you should validate your code to a skeptic. I don't think I convinced 
them by telling them they should follow that set of steps...

   "Have You Validated Your Code?"
John Horner(+612 / 02) 9333 3488
Senior Developer, ABC Online  http://www.abc.net.au/

**
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] Validation of CSS

[Jan Brasna]

That is a good point, there should be a DOCTYPE identifier for CSS, that
would make it a lot easier to validate and everything.
IMHO not, because CSS doesn't have strict separation of versions. The 
validator should check only "well-formness" of it.

And then alternatively you could be asked what version/revesion you used 
when authoring it - to check it for valid selector/rules/media etc. 
However you can have CSS1, CSS2 (precisely 2.1 as the last revision), 
CSS3 and vendor specific rules in one file and browser should pick only 
the ones the understand. So many version of CSS can be in one file. 
Therefore validation against one specific version is IMHO N/A here.

--
Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Validation of CSS

[Ryan]

That is a good point, there should be a DOCTYPE identifier for CSS, that
would make it a lot easier to validate and everything.

--
Ryan


On 4/7/05 8:08 PM, "John Horner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I was recently talking to someone who'd validated their CSS and got
> an error for "display:inline-block".
> 
> He was using the W3 validator, and it was telling him it was invalid,
> and it is of course, for CSS 1 and 2. If you used the advanced
> options and validated against the CSS 3 standard, it was fine.
> 
> Which led him to ask a very sensible question -- why isn't there some
> kind of identifier like the DOCTYPE for CSS?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> "Have You Validated Your Code?"
> John Horner(+612 / 02) 9333 3488
> Senior Developer, ABC Online  http://www.abc.net.au/
> 
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 
> 
> 


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Validation of CSS

[John Horner]

I was recently talking to someone who'd validated their CSS and got 
an error for "display:inline-block".

He was using the W3 validator, and it was telling him it was invalid, 
and it is of course, for CSS 1 and 2. If you used the advanced 
options and validated against the CSS 3 standard, it was fine.

Which led him to ask a very sensible question -- why isn't there some 
kind of identifier like the DOCTYPE for CSS?

Any thoughts?

   "Have You Validated Your Code?"
John Horner(+612 / 02) 9333 3488
Senior Developer, ABC Online  http://www.abc.net.au/

**
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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Chris W. Parker]

Alan Trick 
on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:55 AM said:

> This is kind of off topic but to you think that validation logos
> should open in a new window, or not.  Opening in a new window keeps
> people from leaving the site, but popups are anoying and generally
> frowned upon.

Pop ups are different from a link opening in a new window once clicked.



Chris.
**
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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Alan Trick]

I like that idea.
This is kind of off topic but to you think that validation logos should 
open in a new window, or not.  Opening in a new window keeps people from 
leaving the site, but popups are anoying and generally frowned upon.

designer wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Andy Budd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] validation logos - kitemarks?

 

I think most people put validation logos on their sites for peers. This
is often just vanity/showing off. However other web developers do click
these logos and report back if they find problems, so they can have
their benefits.
I know, I know, we should al make sure our pages validate when they
have been changes, but sometimes it's easy to forget, especially as
most of the time it's not relay mission critical.
Andy Budd
   

I have today knocked up a 'logo' which links to this group's spiel about
standards, and put it on my business web site. Just an experiment, of
course. . .
If you want to see it, go to the link in my signature (below), pick the html
version and it's on the opening page.
Bob McClelland,
Cornwall (U.K.)
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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[designer]

- Original Message - 
From: "Andy Budd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] validation logos - kitemarks?


> I think most people put validation logos on their sites for peers. This
> is often just vanity/showing off. However other web developers do click
> these logos and report back if they find problems, so they can have
> their benefits.
>
> I know, I know, we should al make sure our pages validate when they
> have been changes, but sometimes it's easy to forget, especially as
> most of the time it's not relay mission critical.
>
>
> Andy Budd

I have today knocked up a 'logo' which links to this group's spiel about
standards, and put it on my business web site. Just an experiment, of
course. . .

If you want to see it, go to the link in my signature (below), pick the html
version and it's on the opening page.

Bob McClelland,
Cornwall (U.K.)
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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Andy Budd]

I think most people put validation logos on their sites for peers. This 
is often just vanity/showing off. However other web developers do click 
these logos and report back if they find problems, so they can have 
their benefits.

I know, I know, we should al make sure our pages validate when they 
have been changes, but sometimes it's easy to forget, especially as 
most of the time it's not relay mission critical.

Andy Budd
http://www.message.uk.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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Anthony Timberlake]

I recommend creating your own version of the buttons that fits in with
your layout, so it won't stick out as much.


On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:49:17 -, designer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I think that basically we all agree in principle. However, to take a couple
> of points:
> 
> [1] Patrick's :
> 
> >It's a bit like plastering a nice
> > big sticker on a new building saying "built with bob's special concrete
> > mix". As long as the site (or building) performs as it should, customers
> > do not need to know this sort of stuff...they couldn't care less.
> 
> Is that true? I would have thought that any responsible client of the
> builder would like to know that building regs were adhered to.  (i.e.,
> 'standards' are our 'building regulations' :-)   Surely?
> 
> >  Compliance does not necessarily equate high standard.
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> > Who would be the awarding body? Who would monitor continuous compliance?
> 
> Yep! There's the rub!
> 
> [2] Kim:
> 
> > Maybe the "stickers" wont
> > mean anything to all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That
> > way the "stickers" could turn into a kind off "quality stamp" in the
> > long run.
> 
> My (new) feelings exactly.
> 
> [3] Kornel:
> 
> > I like that idea...
> 
> So who (which one of us) is going to do it then? :-)
> 
> [4] Mike:
> 
> A nice summary, thank you.
> 
> Bob McClelland,
> Cornwall (U.K.)
> 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
> **
> 
> 


-- 
Anthony Timberlake
Co-Owner of StaticHost Internet Services
http://www.statichost.co.uk
http://www.spikeradio.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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[designer]

Hi all,

I think that basically we all agree in principle. However, to take a couple
of points:

[1] Patrick's :

>It's a bit like plastering a nice
> big sticker on a new building saying "built with bob's special concrete
> mix". As long as the site (or building) performs as it should, customers
> do not need to know this sort of stuff...they couldn't care less.

Is that true? I would have thought that any responsible client of the
builder would like to know that building regs were adhered to.  (i.e.,
'standards' are our 'building regulations' :-)   Surely?

>  Compliance does not necessarily equate high standard.

Absolutely!

> Who would be the awarding body? Who would monitor continuous compliance?

Yep! There's the rub!


[2] Kim:

> Maybe the "stickers" wont
> mean anything to all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That
> way the "stickers" could turn into a kind off "quality stamp" in the
> long run.

My (new) feelings exactly.

[3] Kornel:

> I like that idea...

So who (which one of us) is going to do it then? :-)

[4] Mike:

A nice summary, thank you.

Bob McClelland,
Cornwall (U.K.)
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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Mike Pepper]

An old chestnut.

Standards badging is largely irrelevant to the client as they have no
knowledge of or likely interest in the delivery mechanisms and markup/coding
involved in development of a web presence. Neither too has the general
public. That's point 1: fair ignorance of development.

Since CSS, DTD markup compliance or WAI accessibility level badges are
simply markers to recommendations and not Kite marks (like Corgi for British
gas fitters, a recognised accreditation) they have no bearing on
accountability or fitness for purpose, and their adoption is, at best, an
indication that developers and, possibly, clients recognise best practice in
the industry. That's point 2: no accountability in law or to a peer group.

Where badging does kick in and I believe justifiably so is with
inter-industry peer pressure and as a prompt for unclued wannabe developers
to investigate further. A couple of years ago I had no idea what web
standards or accessibility were about; I now know better. Part of the
trigger was the use of badges on certain sites I happened upon.

To the initiated, badges are often looked upon with smug derision; we don't
need 'em cuz we're cool. Ivory tower syndrome. Don't get smug. I badge
because I want fledgling developers to ask questions of and be a party to
standards development. These are the guys we need to have commit to
standards-compliant accessible development, as we do their tutors in
educational establishments.

A top down approach to development, a commitment by governments to sanction
businesses who do not take 'reasonable efforts' to ensure their sites are
accessible is a welcome - though largely toothless - effort towards
recognising a moral requirement toward the rights of impaired web users. But
until these sanctions are imposed with a fervour, which they won't because
of the legal minefield involved when challenging *recommendations* not
development *standards* (and the woolliness of the legislation), it's
necessary to adopt a bottom up, critical mass approach.

Until we, as an industry, are accredited with an internationally recognised
set of development standards, which will mean formal exams toward formal
qualifications, the best we can expect is to have wannabe developers look to
us for guidance. That can start with a couple of badges on a site.

Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.visidigm.com

Administrator
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gawds.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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Kim Kruse wrote:
 I guess we all have a common 
interest in higher awareness about standards.
But again, who are we targetting with these? Site visitors? Site owners? 
Our peer web developers?

Maybe the "stickers" wont 
mean anything to all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That 
way the "stickers" could turn into a kind off "quality stamp" in the 
long run.
Validation does not equal quality. And looking at some of the high 
profile sites which have adopted standards (e.g. www.wired.com), I don't 
see any little stickers. Only if these big players started adding the 
stickers would it matter.

IMHO, of course.
--
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
**
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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Kim Kruse]

I'm not sure I agree when it comes to "you shouldn't plaster a site with 
"stickers" for valid xhtml/css/508 etc. I guess we all have a common 
interest in higher awareness about standards. Maybe the "stickers" wont 
mean anything to all people but lets hope they'll ask what it is. That 
way the "stickers" could turn into a kind off "quality stamp" in the 
long run.

Just my humble opinion
Kim

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
designer wrote:
[1]  Do folk regard the w3c validation logos in much the same way 
that other
industries regard the kitemark?

I think an important thing to remember here is: who are these logos 
for? Sure, you get the peer recognition, but do consumers and end 
users *really* care about whether or not your site is XHTML 1.0 Strict 
compliant? I'd posit that no, for the most part, users will come to 
your site to get a service or information. It's a bit like plastering 
a nice big sticker on a new building saying "built with bob's special 
concrete mix". As long as the site (or building) performs as it 
should, customers do not need to know this sort of stuff...they 
couldn't care less.

[2]  if not, is this because they aren't 'official' ?

Well, the kitemarks assure consumers that their products won't just 
blow up or catch fire or something. With a web site, it really has no 
meaning. A site can be fully W3C compliant and still be unfit for 
purpose. Compliance does not necessarily equate high standard.

[3] Have there been any attempts to get an official kitemark (or 
kitemarks)
for valid, accessible sites?

Let's not confuse validation with accessibility. There is a certain 
benefit to advertising (or otherwise making clear) that a site has 
made steps towards being accessible...although I'd argue that even 
then this sort of thing should be invisible, i.e.: a user with certain 
access needs should realise a site is accessible by actually using it, 
and not because he/she is being told.

It seems to me that a 'proper' kitemark would really be an incentive for
folk to use standards.

Who would be the awarding body? Who would monitor continuous compliance?
**
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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Lea de Groot]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:41:24 -, designer wrote:
> [1]  Do folk regard the w3c validation logos in much the same way that other
> industries regard the kitemark?

Having never heard of a 'kitemark' I googled, and got this:
http://www.bsi-global.com/Kitemark/index.xalter
I assume the 'heart shaped' image is the 'kitemark'?

Interesting point, but I think the difference is that a web site is in 
the use, not in the checks :(

Lea
**
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] validation logos - kitemarks?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

designer wrote:
[1]  Do folk regard the w3c validation logos in much the same way that other
industries regard the kitemark?
I think an important thing to remember here is: who are these logos for? 
Sure, you get the peer recognition, but do consumers and end users 
*really* care about whether or not your site is XHTML 1.0 Strict 
compliant? I'd posit that no, for the most part, users will come to your 
site to get a service or information. It's a bit like plastering a nice 
big sticker on a new building saying "built with bob's special concrete 
mix". As long as the site (or building) performs as it should, customers 
do not need to know this sort of stuff...they couldn't care less.

[2]  if not, is this because they aren't 'official' ?
Well, the kitemarks assure consumers that their products won't just blow 
up or catch fire or something. With a web site, it really has no 
meaning. A site can be fully W3C compliant and still be unfit for 
purpose. Compliance does not necessarily equate high standard.

[3] Have there been any attempts to get an official kitemark (or kitemarks)
for valid, accessible sites?
Let's not confuse validation with accessibility. There is a certain 
benefit to advertising (or otherwise making clear) that a site has made 
steps towards being accessible...although I'd argue that even then this 
sort of thing should be invisible, i.e.: a user with certain access 
needs should realise a site is accessible by actually using it, and not 
because he/she is being told.

It seems to me that a 'proper' kitemark would really be an incentive for
folk to use standards.
Who would be the awarding body? Who would monitor continuous compliance?
--
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
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] validation logos - kitemarks?

[designer]

- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Trick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] To display or not to display validation logos?


> What you may want to do is insted of the displaying that logo, use the
> smaller ones, like the ones at the bottom of this (http://plone.org/)
page.
>
[snip]

I've been googling, but not found much in answer to my queries , which are,

[1]  Do folk regard the w3c validation logos in much the same way that other
industries regard the kitemark?

[2]  if not, is this because they aren't 'official' ?

[3] Have there been any attempts to get an official kitemark (or kitemarks)
for valid, accessible sites?

It seems to me that a 'proper' kitemark would really be an incentive for
folk to use standards.

Anyone?

Bob McClelland,
Cornwall (U.K.)
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] Validation Error

[JohnyB]

W3C CSS Validator Results for http://ckimedia.com/
No error or warning found
Congratulations!
Valid CSS!
This document validates as CSS!
...
--
Jan Brasna :: alphanumeric.cz | webcore.cz | designlab.cz | janbrasna.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] Validation Error

[Charles Martin]

May want to give it another try.. I just did the validation through 
Firefox and it reported no errors.

--
_
Charles Martin
http://www.webcudgel.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**
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] Validation Error[solved]

[Chris Kennon]

Ironically the problem was  with a link to a web standards site.

On Monday, January 3, 2005, at 08:21  AM, Chris Kennon wrote:
Me Again:
The W3c CSS validator is giving me strange results. All was well  
yesterday, but to today I'm instructed to validate the document, which  
returns valid XHTML, but the CSS validator reports an error:

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://ckimedia.com/ 
index.php


CK
__
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

CK
__
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Validation Error

[Chris Kennon]

Me Again:
The W3c CSS validator is giving me strange results. All was well  
yesterday, but to today I'm instructed to validate the document, which  
returns valid XHTML, but the CSS validator reports an error:

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://ckimedia.com/ 
index.php


CK
__
"Knowing is not enough, you must apply;
willing is not enough, you must do."
---Bruce Lee
**
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] Validation and Accessibility Reports out side of the W3C

[Mark Harwood]

We actualy got around it using Dreamweavers RegEx support in its Find and 
Replace 

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:59 , Mordechai Peller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:

>Mark Harwood  wrote:
>
>>Now we have just run a SiteMore.com check on part of the development site and 
>>it
>>has come back kicking and screaming at us as we are using WIDTH and HEIGHT on
>>'s and ALIGN on 's
>>  
>>
>It shouldn't be that difficult to write a small program to go through 
>the files and whenever it finds a table with width or height, or an 
>aligned image, to remove the attributes and either add a style attribute 
>or add an id and insert the style rules in a style block.
>
>The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
>




**
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] Validation and Accessibility Reports out side of the W3C

[Mordechai Peller]

Mark Harwood  wrote:
Now we have just run a SiteMore.com check on part of the development site and it
has come back kicking and screaming at us as we are using WIDTH and HEIGHT on
's and ALIGN on 's
 

It shouldn't be that difficult to write a small program to go through 
the files and whenever it finds a table with width or height, or an 
aligned image, to remove the attributes and either add a style attribute 
or add an id and insert the style rules in a style block.

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Validation and Accessibility Reports out side of the W3C

[Mark Harwood]

Im currently working on a project for a local council to make there site
Accessible and Validate.

Now as with most developers im working with W3C's HTML validate and WebXact from
watchfire for Accessibility.

Now the site is very large and as such a lot of the old content is still HTML
4.01 Trans, but is validates fine and also gets AA accessibility.

Now we have just run a SiteMore.com check on part of the development site and it
has come back kicking and screaming at us as we are using WIDTH and HEIGHT on
's and ALIGN on 's

Now I know these attributes are now redundant by W3C and were are advised not 
too
use them in future projects, but they also state they will carry on being
supported for backwards compatibility.

Is sitemore.com correct in saying that we fail AA? as we have these attributes?
Even though there all relative measurements?

They state this is the only way to be AA and that also we should not use 4.01
Trans but should use Strict.

Now I agree, if we had the time to sort out all the old static content we would
go though and make it all XHTML 1.0 but sadly we don't have time so were going
through the guidelines and getting it Valid and to AA standards.

The other issues with this is that they have only just brought this into place
right at the start of reports by SOCITIM (government report thingy!) and they 
use
Sitemore to check the councils websites.

My argue is that they cant state were invalid and don't pass AA as they are 
being
to strict to the guidelines.

Also they stated that we should move to Strict XHTML and use inline styles, 
which
I know is invalid.

But what you lot think?

Sorry for my long winded rant, just weve been working on this none stop for the
last 10days to get it sorted in time and now they move the goal posts, guess its
like the FA over ruling FIFA :S

Many Thanks
Mark Harwood

Phunky.co.uk / Xhtmlandcss.co.uk / Zinkmedia.co.uk / Currently out of contract





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] validation problems

[Ted Drake]

Hi everyone
I'm having some trouble validating this page. We just put this most recent version 
online and I'm starting to do the nitty gritty work. Ignore the style sheets for now, 
this weekend is the big style-sheet-work-o-rama.

http://v4.csatravelprotection.com

There are several problems that are easy for me to fix.  Here are the difficult 
questions that I have:

The comments are from the WDG html validation in Chris's super-ific web developer 
toolbar.

Error: there is no attribute onblur for this element (in this HTML version)
\/  \/   \/   \/   \/ \/   \/  \/ 




This is an input tag for a departure date.  If someone clicks on the input field, a 
calendar will popup and give them the easy method to enter their travel dates.  I have 
two questions about this field.

1. We are using xhtml transitional.  How can I use  the onfocus/onblur attribute?
2. We are using struts 1.1/tiles. I can't get it to close the .   tags. I've added the  tag to the main template and this 
is supposed to tell struts to make all of the tags xhtml compliant.  I know this is 
more of a struts forum topic, but I wanted to see if there were any struts people on 
this list that could help.
 

-Original Message-
From: Wasabi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Sitepoint Web Business Kit



On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 09:18 AM, Ted Drake wrote:


http://www.sitepoint.com/books/freelance1/

> could you send a link to sitepoint?
> Ted
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wasabi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [WSG] Sitepoint Web Business Kit
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Could someone critique the Sitepoint Web Business Kit. Is it worth the
> pulp, or can the info provided be found on the internet?
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
> Chris
>
> http://ckimedia.com
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
>  Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
>
> Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
>  Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
> To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
>
>  See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
>  for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
>
>
Respectfully,
Chris

http://ckimedia.com

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/
 Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge
To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] validation... and invalid markup

[scott parsons]

The valid code used in the Flash Satay examples is completely ok and 
the w3c recommended way to insert an object in a page, it's not a hack 
- it's good, valid code - read the HTML4 rec available at w3c. The 
hack is the embed tag - Gecko, Opera and KHTML all support  
perfectly well.  The hack is the way ActiveX browsers (i.e IE) use the 
object tag. Apparently the object tag used by all other browsers is 
the one in the HTML4 rec, the object tag used by IE is a Microsoft tag 
implemented prior to the HTML rec.
yeah ok, you are probably right... except that flash satay doesn't work 
in IE/win(no streaming), and how about the tasman engine? I thought that 
still required the embed tag, but I could be wrong I don't use the flash 
satay code for flash.
The fact is that the IE implementation of the object tag isn't standard, 
and therefore to use properly for those browsers a non-standard approach 
may be best.

But this isn't really the point I was mostly trying to make, which was 
my lack of understanding of the "must validate even if I still want to 
use invalid code crowd". I consider that the flash satay method falls 
into this arena but totally recognise that you disagree (and may well be 
right).

s
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] validation... and invalid markup

[Justin French]

On Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 12:09  PM, scott parsons wrote:

Personally I don't understand this desire to validate when using 
invalid code. It is strange, I simply ask why, if they want valid code 
do they use invalid code?

so that is my grump of the day... any comments?
I agree 100%.  Tricking a CSS validator into validating invalid code is 
just a waste of time, especially since you can't be assured that the 
validator will feel the same in a day/week/year's time.  Either write 
to standards, or don't, eh?

Personally, I use zero hacks, and validate all the way, but then again, 
I'm happy for a few pixels difference between IE and Moz and Safari, 
and I'm prepared to make sacrifices.  If there was a job that had to 
have non-standard mark-up or CSS, I certainly wouldn't bother with 
validation, or attempt to spoof validation just for the sake of a 
(essentially fake) 'valid' button.  I'd get it as good as possible, and 
leave it at that.

Justin French

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] validation... and invalid markup

[James Ellis]

Scott:


scott parsons wrote:

Standards... yay
sure if you belong to this list you gotta support standards or else why
bother?
  

Well, not really. Belonging to a list doesn't mean you agree with
everything on it.
But
lately I have seen lots of people trying to find ways to validate their
code when it isn't valid.
  
For example Veine K Vikberg just posted to this list about a flash
problem he was having...
  
The best code for embedding a flash movie ISN'T valid markup, so why do
people try to hack the mark-up to pieces to validate?
  


The valid code used in the Flash Satay examples is completely ok and
the w3c recommended way to insert an object in a page, it's not a hack
- it's good, valid code - read the HTML4 rec available at w3c. The hack
is the embed tag - Gecko, Opera and KHTML all support 
perfectly well.  The hack is the way ActiveX browsers (i.e IE) use the
object tag. Apparently the object tag used by all other browsers is the
one in the HTML4 rec, the object tag used by IE is a Microsoft tag
implemented prior to the HTML rec.

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/07/02/dive.html
"Why won't it work? Well, it will work in some browsers. But not in
Internet Explorer. The  element is a good
idea; unfortunately, it came a bit too late in the game. Before
 was officially added to the HTML
specification
in 1997, Microsoft had already introduced its own vendor-specific
element
in Internet Explorer 3.0 as a way of embedding ActiveX controls in web
pages: an element named... .
When  was later standardized,
Microsoft
retrofitted support for it, sort of. Except that, to this day, even the
latest version of Internet Explorer treats all 
elements as ActiveX controls. Which means that if you have your
security
settings on "high" (disabling all ActiveX controls), you won't see any
 elements, even ones that have nothing to do
with ActiveX."
Cheers
James

Personally
I don't understand this desire to validate when using invalid code. It
is strange, I simply ask why, if they want valid code do they use
invalid code?
  
  
so that is my grump of the day... any comments?
  



*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
* 

Re: [WSG] validation... and invalid markup

[scott parsons]

Standards... yay
sure if you belong to this list you gotta support standards or else why 
bother?
But lately I have seen lots of people trying to find ways to validate 
their code when it isn't valid.
For example Veine K Vikberg just posted to this list about a flash 
problem he was having...
The best code for embedding a flash movie ISN'T valid markup, so why do 
people try to hack the mark-up to pieces to validate?
Maybe I am missing something here but I just validate without the flash, 
then insert it.
Likewise recently on a forum I visit someone was asking how to spoof the 
css validator to let through some invalid IE-prop css. I simply asked 
why! I mean if you want to use invalid mark-up then use it but don't 
spend time either spoofing the validators or hacking your mark-up to 
make it pretend to be valid.

Personally I don't understand this desire to validate when using invalid 
code. It is strange, I simply ask why, if they want valid code do they 
use invalid code?

so that is my grump of the day... any comments?

*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
*