Hi Mike, Just a few things that need clearing up...
> Why not just relax a little and do a table for the part > that's giving you > all the heartburn, and move on the rest of the site as > compliant. The html > wont validate, but will that really matter that much? <snip> > That way you're still getting most of the advantages of a > compliant site, > without being truly compliant. Using tables for layout is semantically incorrect, however it should still validate as it would if you were using them for a table of data. If it doesn't then you need to work out why and fix it. What are the errors you are referring to here? > I've taken this approach with a site I have where the WYSIWYG > editor I use > wont produce XHTML valid code - it will always change tags to > upper case and > changes <br /> to <BR> So since the pages are generated > dynamically they > can never validate. So I've just taken a snapshot of a few > of the pages, > saved them as html pages, manually changed the upper case > tags etc, then > checked that for validity. I know that the rest of the page > validates ok so > I'm just going to go with that. One day the WYSISYG editor > (SPAW-CF by the > way) will produce XHTML compliant code and then I'll have a > fully compliant > site. You really need to get a different editor! I suggest the Ektron ones as the best (OABB) and highly configurable. However I'm surprised that SPAW is writing code in this 1994 method. Then again development on SPAW seems to have come to a grinding halt. Not surprising really given the much better commercial products that are available. They are reinventing the wheel here. It brings me to ask why you would want to use XHTML if you use an embedded editor that doesn't write well formed code. HTML 4.01 is perfectly acceptable as a mark-up language. Using a hammer to put a wood screw in a piece of steel I feel ;-) P ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
