Re: validation problem

At 01:17 PM 6/14/2001 +0400, Lynn Lund wrote:
>I guess
>the conclusion to be made is that you can't validate for both XHTML and HTML
>transitional.  Does anyone have an opinion as to which it is better to 
>validate
>for?  Also can anyone answer Stephanie's question about why the other trailing
>slashes don't seem to pose a validation problem?

Lynn,

XHTML is one specification and HTML is another. No, you can't have it both 
ways.

I prefer XHTML since it is the way of things to come. But, in regards to 
Ineke's post, I use XHTML 1.0 Trans since not all browsers can handle the 
strict DTD.

XHTML 1.0 Trans really isn't that different from 4.01 and that's 
intentional. If you read the W3C (bring plenty of caffeine since it's not 
an easy read), you'll notice XHTML 1.0 Trans is intended as a transition 
from HTML to XHTML -- basically they /wanted/ to make it easier for us.

When you use the W3C validator, it will find X number of errors and then 
quit. I've been validating for awhile now and I never do it on the first 
(or second) try. The validator will find some errors, I'll fix those and 
then it will find some more since the first errors sort of covered up the 
remaining errors.

Good luck!
<tamara />

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA