Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: w3c validation 2 errors.. DOCTYPE related prob.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    英国
    Posts
    11,876
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 180 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    If you stick with XHTML then you must set your Content-Type appropriately to prevent it being parsed as malformed HTML. Read this list of common coding errors and follow the links on the section about XHTML.

    The use of Javascript to provide different pages based on screen size is a monumentally bad idea. It means you have to maintain n different versions of your page every time you make an update, and also disallows anyone without Javascript from viewing your page. If you code it properly in the first place, the page will resize itself appropriately.

    You should have been validating your page as you coded, rather than leaving it to the last minute. When you know how to write mostly-correct pages without the aid of the validator then you can afford to do that, but until then you should validate after every new change (and check my list, too!).

    bluewalrus: don't pixel-size your fonts, and don't use fonts without providing a generic font family on which to fall back (especially with weird and wacky fonts: I don't have a 'Century Gothic' font, and my computer wouldn't have a clue what to render instead if you don't provide it with one). The layout shouldn't be pixel-sized either. Does nobody read my links? I created that list precisely that I wouldn't have to type this out for every new page. That page still doesn't work without Javascript.
    Twey | I understand English | 日本語が分かります | mi jimpe fi le jbobau | mi esperanton komprenas | je comprends franšais | entiendo espa˝ol | t˘i Ýt hiểu tiếng Việt | ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch | beware XHTML | common coding mistakes | tutorials | various stuff | argh PHP!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Boston,ma
    Posts
    2,127
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 207 Times in 205 Posts

    Default

    I did not touch the css's here i only went threw to get it to validate and changed id's to classes.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default ta everyone

    bluewalrus: thanks for the code but it dissabled my Java applets.. eek!

    Twey : You don't have century gothic, oh no, so what if I put it on the server, would it load for people who don't have it then?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    英国
    Posts
    11,876
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 180 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I'm afraid that those Java applets have got to go. They're not at all accessible, there's no sensible fallback, they take ages to load, and they're frankly huge, both in terms of bandwidth and screen real estate.

    No, there is no way to force users to view your pages in the fonts you intended.
    Twey | I understand English | 日本語が分かります | mi jimpe fi le jbobau | mi esperanton komprenas | je comprends franšais | entiendo espa˝ol | t˘i Ýt hiểu tiếng Việt | ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch | beware XHTML | common coding mistakes | tutorials | various stuff | argh PHP!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default that's that!

    Well those Java applets are not going anywhere. I've tried with the w3c, but its too rigid and I'm sure my site works on other computers except my own. W3c can go stuff itself quite frankly, but thanks everybody for your help!!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    英国
    Posts
    11,876
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 180 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    It does, but fairly few of them (and 'works' here depends on whether the user thinks to scroll down what appears to be a blank-ish page, too).

    The W3C standards really aren't 'rigid' at all. Most of the things about which you're complaining are just general good practice. If one constructs one's page sensibly in the first place, validation is usually just a case of fixing a few typos and/or incorrectly nested elements.
    Twey | I understand English | 日本語が分かります | mi jimpe fi le jbobau | mi esperanton komprenas | je comprends franšais | entiendo espa˝ol | t˘i Ýt hiểu tiếng Việt | ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch | beware XHTML | common coding mistakes | tutorials | various stuff | argh PHP!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE PA USA
    Posts
    30,374
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 3,421 Times in 3,382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    Actually you cannot have any standards in coding, without a certain degree of rigidity. Otherwise the standard would be - anything goes.

    I think that rather than argue that coding standards aren't rigid (which they are - fairly well set, unlikely to change a lot very quickly), it would be more productive to point out the advantages in following them.

    That said, it is the individual's choice whether to follow them or not. However, if you decide to go your own way, you are moving into territory where there are no readily apparent guidelines for diagnosing problems with your code, and less likelihood that what works today will work in newer browsers.

    Many folks in refusing to adopt standards are being rigid, insofar as they are refusing to embrace a new (for them) approach.

    It is also rigid to ask for help and then refuse it while thinking that one knows better than anyone else.
    - John
    ________________________

    Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    英国
    Posts
    11,876
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 180 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I quoted it: I presume the original meaning that I was quoting was 'unreasonably rigid'
    Twey | I understand English | 日本語が分かります | mi jimpe fi le jbobau | mi esperanton komprenas | je comprends franšais | entiendo espa˝ol | t˘i Ýt hiểu tiếng Việt | ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch | beware XHTML | common coding mistakes | tutorials | various stuff | argh PHP!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE PA USA
    Posts
    30,374
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 3,421 Times in 3,382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    I will give you that to a degree, literally 'too rigid' - actually a relativistic term into which one could read from as representing quite a large range of possible meanings. Still, taking just your statement where you used simply "'rigid'" . . . In any case standards are almost by definition rigid, in this case definitely.

    We shouldn't get too caught up in semantics though. Rigid in current usage has certain negative connotations that don't logically flow from its actual meaning. One might as well have said 'too structured', in which case the argument on both sides (which I think I covered in my previous post in a manner favorable to what both you and I believe) would have been much clearer. Though it would no longer apply as well, to wit:

    It is also structured (rigid) to ask for help and then refuse it while thinking that one knows better than anyone else.
    - John
    ________________________

    Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •