|
|
Posted by fuli open on 02/03/07 12:43
On Feb 2, 11:33 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <1170472787.952166.23...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "fuli open" <fulio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 3:40 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1170422456.170208.152...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "fuli open" <fulio...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 5:17 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > "The expert advice is to use HTML 4.01, but you can of course use
> > > > > > > technobabble-XHTML _if_ you are careful enough to follow
> > > > > > > guidelines that effectively make it HTML 4.01 with pointless
> > > > > > > kludges."
>
> > > > Also, which language do html professionals like better, xhtml or html
> > > > 4.01? As an amateur, following suit is the best policy.
>
> > > Just use HTML 4.01.
>
> > I tested my home page with html 4 strict on the html validator, and
> > was told as follows:
>
> > quote
> > No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.
>
> > This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Strict!
> > unquote
>
> > In fact, I tested all the three headings, xhtml, html transitional and
> > html strict, but was told that my page was not valid any. And if the
> > page is not valid for any heading, do I still need to put a heading
> > there? Will the heading hurt the page?
>
> > The URL of the tested page is:www.pinyinology.com
>
> For now, you could put in a line between <head> and </head> that
> reads
>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
> charset=ISO-8859-1">
>
> or
>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
> charset=UTF-8">
>
> Or contact your server admin and inquire how to set something on
> this matter at the server end.
>
> You cannot just change the doctype, you need to see what the
> specs are for the 4.01 Strict doctype is and form your markup
> accordingly. You are using a wrong "/" in some tags. This is the
> style for XHTML, not appropriate here.
>
> Come to think of it, with your marquees and embeds, perhaps
> simpler for the moment for you to use a less strict doctype until
> you have studied these matters further:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
>
> or even
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Wilbur/HTML32.dtd">
>
> But aim for 4.01 Strict. This will involve some work and study.
>
> I enjoyed looking and hearing things on your site, nice
> surprises. Some things worked in some of my browsers.
I got 11 errors with the 4.01 Transitional, but 28 errors with 3.2
Final. It seems better to put the 4.01 Transitional there for the
moment. Thanks a lot for your help and encouraging comments.
fuli
>
> --
> dorayme
[Back to original message]
|