[Phpwm] new ste

Thu Feb 15 09:08:56 GMT 2007

Phil, 

I think you will find they are warnings and not errors according to the w3c
plug-in for Firefox

Dave 

-----Original Message-----
From: phpwm-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk
[mailto:phpwm-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Phil Beynon
Sent: 15 February 2007 02:25
To: West Midlands PHP User Group
Subject: RE: [Phpwm] new ste

> We are... And we are learning more and more about XHTML and CSS all 
> the time hence me being on the computer at 1am.
> http://www.clublinefootball.com/ uses
> XMTML strict throughout.

Hi Dave,

Its coming up with 20 errors on the front page using the W3C validator! :-)
The first few are because you have META instead of meta, XHTML should be
lower case.

Phil

> > >> To make the validator work all you need to do is replace your
> > previous dtd
> > >> and html opening tag with (note the dtd and xml definition are
> > the first
> > >> thing on the page):
> > >>
> > >> <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC 
> > >> '-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN'
> > >> 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd'>
> > >> <html xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml' lang='en' 
> > >> xml:lang='en'>
> > >>
> > >
> > > I've not noticed the <?xml thing all that often; is it often not used?
> > > Or do few people bother reaching that standard?
> > >
> > > (<? also has that annoying property of being the equivalent of 
> > > <?php on some stupid servers, and is quite annoying when you find 
> > > it in 3rd party code).
> > >
> > > David.
> > >
> > In my limited experience with XHTML I have not used the initial 
> > <?xml .... ?> line and my pages have validated successfully as XHTML 
> > 1.0 Transitional with the W3C validator, the WDG validator and the 
> > Total Validator.
> >
> > The W3C XHTML1.0 standard, at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/, says "An 
> > XML declaration is not required in all XML documents; however XHTML 
> > document authors are strongly encouraged to use XML declarations in 
> > all their documents. Such a declaration is required when the 
> > character encoding of the document is other than the default UTF-8 
> > or UTF-16 and no encoding was determined by a higher-level protocol."
> >
> > So that probably explains why we can get away with omitting the 
> > <?xml ... ?> stuff even though we should include it!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Peter Crouch
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Tel: 0121 523 6756
> > E-mail: pccrouch at bcs.org.uk
> >
>
> Well I've got the homepage passing as XHTML 1.0 transitional. 
> Everything scooted left a bit though.
>
> So is that what I should be aiming for, because I see on the W3C site 
> it also mentions XHTML 1.1 and 2.0 ??
>
> Also as I understand it the main difference with 'strict' and 
> 'transitional'
> is its where you can't use certain tags or elements - such as align - 
> anymore and all these functions should only be within the CSS.
> How many people are writing for 'strict' on an `aim to use strict in 
> everything` approach?
>
> Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phpwm mailing list
> Phpwm at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/phpwm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phpwm mailing list
> Phpwm at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/phpwm
>

_______________________________________________
Phpwm mailing list
Phpwm at mailman.lug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/phpwm