Register

If this is your first visit, please click the Sign Up now button to begin the process of creating your account so you can begin posting on our forums! The Sign Up process will only take up about a minute of two of your time.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Member mark4man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    65
    Member #
    2599
    OK...I did it!

    I converted my XHTML compliant site back to HTML...

    ...by freakin' hand (as in, "manually.")

    (& for those that helped me to determine that as the correct approach...thanks.)

    I replaced the XHTML prologue with HTML, for every page (&...I apologize if that's a misspell...everyone else seems to spell it "prolog.")

    Then I rewrote all the image, meta, object, area & line break tags to HTML standard...

    ...& validated the entire site (in Dreamweaver.)

    There are a few errors that I am having trouble with; & I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction (& believe me...I am very appreciative of all the help already received in the board):

    1) The tag: "table" doesn't have an attribute. "height" in currently active versions.

    All I did here was to place a Table inside of a Layer. It seems to look fine on the web. Can't figure out why this is an error.

    2) The tag: "marquee" is not allowed within: "strong" is only allowed within: body.

    Here, I placed a scrolling marquee script (again, inside a Layer.) I made the text bold, because it looked weak, otherwise. I was under the impression that it only worked in IE, but a friend of mine informed me that it works for them in Navigator, as well. Is having a scrolling marquee a problem? Is there a better way to accomplish this?

    3) I have 4 tags *above* the <!DOCTYPE> tag:

    <cfprocessingdirective pageEncoding="iso-8859-1"/>
    <cfcontent type="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"/>
    <cfset setEncoding("URL", "iso-8859-1")/>
    <cfset setEncoding("FORM", "iso-8859-1")/>,

    ...which were written there when I placed a PayPal button on a merchandise page, which links to a payment form at PayPal. The Validator claims the "cfprocessingdirective", "cfcontent" & "cfset" tags are not found in currently active versions.

    Not quite sure what to do about this one. I feel weird about the location, primarily (above the DTD.) Is it that, or the tags themselves?

    4) The tag name: "embed" not found in currently active versions.

    This came about due to the fact that I placed 4 Flash Buttons on a page. They also seem to work fine.
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Thanks for any help,

    mark4man

  2.  

  3. #2
    Senior Member mossoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Englandshire, United Kingdomsville y'all!
    Posts
    1,111
    Member #
    1206
    Liked
    1 times
    Have you got height specified in your table? If you have, get rid of it and let the TD heights define the overall height.

    For the marquee, it sounds like you've got something like this:

    <strong><marquee>
    This is the worlds 2nd most annoying tag
    </marquee></strong>

    Just switch the tags so that <marquee> is outside strong.

    I can't help you with the other two I'm afraid.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Brak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,413
    Member #
    1217
    Liked
    2 times
    3) Get rid of them, they're cold-fusion processing directives and unneeded.

    4)There is no tag embed... use <object> tag I think for putting them in.
    Kyle Neath: Rockstar extraordinare
    The blog | The poetry site | The Spore site

  5. #4
    WDF Staff smoseley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    9,729
    Member #
    819
    Liked
    205 times
    I think <embed> is required for older versions of IE (below 5.0). It was their precursor to the <object>

  6. #5
    WDF Staff smoseley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    9,729
    Member #
    819
    Liked
    205 times
    Like I always say, there's a difference between compliance and compatibility. One is for show, the other is for real-world usability.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Brak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,413
    Member #
    1217
    Liked
    2 times
    To a point... I've found making your pages compliant resolves 95% of compatability issues. Also, there's just some browsers I wont support anymore. For example, NS4. With it's complete disregard to CSS on form objects... I cannot allow for it. I figure if someone is using an ancient browser - they can see my pages a little funky. If you structure your pages according to how the w3c ideolizes, your page content should be readable on nearly any browser.

    Also keep in mind browsers like lynx... text-based browsers. Following standards ensures these browsers re-render the page properly.

    Also I disagree with the "for show" part of your argument. One might say that following California's pollution standards for cars is "for show" It's about doing things the proper way, so that everything is standard. Also, compliant web pages load faster and better in real browsers (IE is not one of these). There's no guesswork to do.
    Kyle Neath: Rockstar extraordinare
    The blog | The poetry site | The Spore site

  8. #7
    Senior Member mossoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Englandshire, United Kingdomsville y'all!
    Posts
    1,111
    Member #
    1206
    Liked
    1 times
    Also, compliant web pages load faster and better in real browsers (IE is not one of these
    Why is IE not a real browser? Is there a reason for this statement or is it just the old "IE is bundled in Windows therefore if I use it I'm not seen to be in with the web crowd" argument?

  9. #8
    Senior Member Brak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,413
    Member #
    1217
    Liked
    2 times
    No, IE renders improperly, does not follow standards, and goes bassakwards about rendering pages. Which is why browsers like mozilla render pages so much faster. Also I say this because IE is not cross-platform whatsoever and every single version for MacOS has had serious issues, which is why they decided to completely stop development for the Mac platform. I also say this because IE is a featureless browser with hardly any development. The browser hasnt' changed hardly at all since win2k first came out. Also IE is a death sentence to people who don't know much about computers due to it's activex controls. People click install without knowing what they are. There are numberless reasons I feel IE is not a real browser.
    Kyle Neath: Rockstar extraordinare
    The blog | The poetry site | The Spore site

  10. #9
    Senior Member mossoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Englandshire, United Kingdomsville y'all!
    Posts
    1,111
    Member #
    1206
    Liked
    1 times
    Fair enough, I'm just too used to other forums where the general concencus is that IE is used by a lot of people and is therefore somehow inferior (a rather assinine response that a lot of people trot out to remain with the in crowd - yourself and others on this forum NOT included in that group).

    One thing though, although IE doesn't stick to the standards as rigidly as the other browsers, can it be discredited as not a proper browser? The job of a browser is to display pages which IE does well. It doesn't enforce the rules as rigidly as the others which I believe improves useability.

    The development of programming in general has been to remove the programmer from the nuts and bolts of communicating with the computer. Binary coding was superceeded by HEX coding which was superceeded by compilers, then came languages, scripting languages and WYSIWYG applications. the direction has been to remove the very specific aspect of programming and make it more like a true language. The ideal would be for a programmer to say into a microphone "make me an application that does this and this".

    So, is IE inferior because it lets 'errors' through, or is it a step in the direction of making life easier for both the coder and end user. Possibly the other browsers have jumped the gun by enforcing standards more strictly rather than waiting for the mess that is the Internet to sort itself out over time.

    There are still a lot of pages that work in IE but not Mozilla. This may be the fault of the designer but the end user still needs to get to the content and doesn't care how.

    Is it possible that the reasons you have specified are somewhat designer-centric? If all the browsers behaved the same our life would be much easier but this is not true in a real world environment of development and competition. Take cars for example, they are all slightly different, some are faster and some can go where others can't. It would be impossible for road builders to make sure every single car can use every single road - it is up to the driver to select the right kind of vehicle for his needs.

    If we want one hundred percent compatibility then we must take into account different languages, accesibility and connection quality. If I was a blind, Urdu speaking person with a 14K connection would I be able to use your site?

    Incidentally, I neither love nor loathe IE and use Opera, IE, Mozilla and Netscape roughly the same amount of the time (it just depends on which icon I hit first most of the time!)

  11. #10
    Senior Member Brak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,413
    Member #
    1217
    Liked
    2 times
    I understand your feelings... but I find that the reasons pages render on IE and not mozilla usually is the coders fault. Mozilla tends to use valid HTML as a template so it can render faster. The rendering speed of some pages between IE/Mozilla are amazingly different, especially if you're on a fast internet connection. IE has made web-coders lazy, especially with MIME types. Eveyrone seems to send things as plain/text when they should be different (i.e. an MP3). Laziness is a bad thing. Look at a language as streamlined as C. If you forget one ; it dies. There's a reason why it dies and doens't just automatically fix itself. It helps keep the language fast and work as intended. Many lazy web designers use IE's thoughts of what HTML should be and end up alienating many visitors. A great example of this is www.buymusic.com You must be using a Windows OS with IE 6+ to view the page - BS! That's just laziness on the webmasters end.

    I have the same feelings for IE as I do for opera because it too discards standards a lot of the time. I commend mozilla for following standards, keeping up with the latest user-needs and making amazing browsers. Personally, IE has caused me nothing but hassles. When i used it as my main browser it constantly gave me trouble with my system and general workings. Also IE seems to be the #1 problem-causeer in people's computers I fix. Granted it's ultimately user-error, IE helps them along the way to ruin their system.

    Ironically, I hate people who just use IE because they refuse to realize there is more than one browser available. Kind of the same reasoning you have.
    Kyle Neath: Rockstar extraordinare
    The blog | The poetry site | The Spore site


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Remove Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Skin By: PurevB.com