Cole, can you post a url so people can see the validator results and
review the code? Everything looks on the up-and-up from what you've
posted. I've never used the FF HTML Validator extension (is it the one
based on HTML Tidy?), so i can't speak for that. The Web Developer
extension just pushes the page to the W3C validator. Please also
verify which Validator of the 2 you're running into trouble with.
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:47 AM, Cole Kuryakin wrote:
Hello all –
I’ve got the following doctype at the head of each of my pages:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd
">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
I take great pains to validate everything I do on every page, but,
even if the page shows as valid (using FF’s HTML Validator extension
– or Web Developer extension… I can’t remember which) when I view
source on a “valid” page, I always get an info box that states:
Info: Doctype given is "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
Info: Document content looks like XHTML 1.0 Transitional
I don’t think that this is – by any means – any reason for me to be
worried about my code/structure/et. al, but I’ve always wondered
why, if I feed a xhtml 1.0 STRICT doc type why the validator always
says that my stuff looks TRANSITIONAL?
Am I doing something wrong?
Any insight would be appreciated.
Cole
*******************************************************************
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]
*******************************************************************
