|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 03/25/06 16:59
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, sorry.no.email@spamsux.com wrote:
> I am tearing my hair out to find the right place to place the
> noframes tage to satisfy the XHTML w3c validator.
That seems a back-to-front way of describing your problem.
The point of doing validation is to assure yourself that you're
following the published specification. So, surely the aim of the
exercise is to follow the specification - not to "satisfy the
validator" as you put it. So the first place to seek enlightenment,
in this as well as any future set-to with the validator, would be the
specification. The spec is http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ , but, since
that really only shows how HTML/4.01 can be reformulated into XHTML,
you probably want to first consult the HTML/4.01 spec for details:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/frames.html#h-16.4.1
and then mentally adjust that as necessary for XHTML.
Thus you see where the <noframes> element belongs, and what it needs
to contain. Yours is empty, so it can't pass validation, no matter
where you put it. And the example that's given in the HTML4 spec
cannot work in XHTML because it assumes an implicit <body> tag, which
XHTML doesn't allow. So you need to enclose your content in a body
element. Like this fragment:
[...]
</frameset>
<noframes>
<body><p>Meaningful content here!</p></body>
</noframes>
</frameset>
</html>
If you're still unclear, after having checked the validator's detailed
report and FAQ for explanations of common problems, then show which
part of the spec you're having problems understanding (as well as
including the text of the validator report), and someone will be
better able to advise you.
And I see that the validator is unhappy with other things in your
sample, which you haven't yet fixed.
Didn't anyone mention that frames are not generally well-liked?
Although originally invented by Netscape, they took them off the main
part of their own web site within about half a year of starting to use
them.
As for nested framesets, well...
If you're going to move from HTML to XHTML, there are several other
things which call for attention, but which don't necessarily cause the
validator to report an error. The compatibility guidelines of
XHTML/1.0 appendix C are a bit of a muddle, but they *do* need your
attention. It's no use just putting a "meta http-equiv" into XHTML in
order to define the character encoding - that feature has no meaning
to XHTML proper, it's only used as a compatibility feature for sending
XHTML as text/html. If you aren't bothering to create proper XHTML in
the first place, one would have to ask what's your aim in trying to
call something XHTML when it's really only (bad) HTML? I'd have to
recommend continuing to write HTML/4.01, correctly, unless and until
you're ready to take XHTML fully on board.
Have fun
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|