|
|
Posted by rf on 10/19/07 09:42
"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:13hgthog4kk9ofc@corp.supernews.com...
> Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
>
>> Robert Baer schreef:
>>
>>> Rob Waaijenberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> When I tried it, it *was* recognized. At least enough so the validator
>>>> could tell me it wasn't valid.
>>
>>
>>> ** Your experience differs from mine.
>>> W3C eXplicitly stated that a doctype declaration was not present.
>>> And about a year ago, it did not complain regarding the declaration.
>>>
>>
>> That's one of the reasons we don't like to copy/paste.
>> If you lead us to an online website there is a remarkably greater chance
>> that we see the same warnings and errors.
> * NOW, the W3C site does *not* complain about no declaration, and i made
> no changes.
>
>>
>>>> Didn't you know that there is a special frameset doctype?
>>>> You'll find it here:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/present/frames.html
>>>
>>> ** No, i had no idea such "subterfuge" existed or was necessary.
>>
>>
>> A frameset doctype for a frames-page qualifies as subterfuge????
>>
>>
>>> To add to confusion, one source eXplicitlystates that the statement is
>>> case sensitive, and that "HTML" must be in lower case.
>>> Your reference displays upper case.
>>>
>>
>> Is that capital X above intended or accidental?
> * Was intentional, used as a means to make greater emphasis to the
> statement.
> In my case, XTML is undesirable.
>
>> Because the lower case requirement is true for XHTML. Funny huh?
>>
>> [snipped]
>>
>>
>>> So people tell me; all i know is that a few sites i visit use
>>> framesets, that they work.
>>
>>
>> That is not impossible, but there are a lot of pitfalls.
>> Please google for "Frames are evil".
> * Read some of that; need example of an easy way to do same thing without
> frames.
>
>>
>>
>>> Not knowing sh*t from shinola, i borrowed code from one of those sites
>>> and discovered these complaints.
>>> If there is a better way, i would need a working example to crib from.
>>
>>
>> I would respectfully suggest that you learn html instead of borrowing
>> code. It would make you less dependent on the quality of the borrowed
>> code (or, of course, the absence of quality).
>>
>>
> I have too many other things that needs to be done; setting aside 300+
> hours for learning HTML code is not an option.
And I, for one, dont have more than this 15 seconds to help you out with a
last century technology frames page, which I wont as I don't do frames.
--
Richard.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|