Posted by Rob Waaijenberg on 10/18/07 13:28

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.

>> 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?
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".


> 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).


--
Rob Waaijenberg

[Back to original message]