Re: validation problem
by Tamara <tamara(at)abbeyink.com>
|
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:07:45 -0500 |
To: |
lynn(at)emirates.net.ae, hwg-basics(at)hwg.org |
References: |
net mom |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
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