Posted by TonyV on 01/08/08 21:18

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, and leaves too much
ambiguity up to browsers to figure out. I'm sticking with XHTML. I'm
also sorry if you have problems with the W3C, but the simple matter of
the fact is that they are the ones formally defining the standards.
If you don't want to use them, that's your prerogative, go for it.
This isn't a flame, it's my choice, and I choose to adhere to the
standards a closely as possible.

Thanks for the info Michael. When I get home, I definitely plan on
trying this stuff out. The site I'm working on is a private site so I
can't post to a URL right now, but based on what you ran through the
validator, it looks like I will be looking elsewhere to find out
what's wrong.

[Back to original message]