|
|
Posted by Harlan Messinger on 01/08/08 21:27
TonyV wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:48 pm, Michael Fesser <neti...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> If I include a thead and tbody without a tfoot,
>>> the page doesn't validate.
>> I can't reproduce that. Can you post an example URL? I think there must
>> be another error in your markup. The following simple code snippet does
>> validate as HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict and XHTML 1.1:
>>
>> <table>
>> <thead>
>> <tr><th>test</th></tr>
>> </thead>
>> <tbody>
>> <tr><td>content</td></tr>
>> </tbody>
>> </table>
>
> Hmmm... You might be right, it could have been erroring out on some
> other problem, because that does validate. If this is the case, then
> this whole conversation is moot, except...
>
> On Jan 8, 12:48 pm, Michael Fesser <neti...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> By default all rows are put into an implicit 'tbody', so there's no need
>> to declare it. But if you use any of the row group elements 'tbody',
>> 'thead' or 'tfoot', then every row must be contained in an explicitly
>> declared row group.
>
> I think you're right. I think that this is indeed the meaning of what
> they said.
>
> As for the other posts regarding the whole XHTML vs. HTML issue, I'm
> not going to argue about it. I'm sorry if you disagree, but I think
> that HTML is messy and inconsistent as a standard,
It is? How so? How is XHTML less messy and inconsistent?
> and leaves too much
> ambiguity up to browsers to figure out. I'm sticking with XHTML.
In what way does XHMTL leave browsers with less ambiguity to figure out
than HTML? As was already pointed out, some browsers aren't figuring out
XHTML *at all* except by pretending it's HTML with errors. Is that better?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|