validation of a 4.01 webpage with a form...
dorayme
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<head>
<title>A Title</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<form method="get" action="http://search.atomz.com/search/">
<input size="20" name="sp-q">
<input type="submit" value="Search">
<input type="hidden" name="sp-a" value="sp1002a0e9">
<input type="hidden" name="sp-p" value="all">
<input type="hidden" name="sp-f" value="ISO-8859-1">
</form>
</body>
</html>
It seems not to matter whether I wrap the form in a div or not,
style the div or the form, the same errors, to wit:
Error Line 14, column 28: document type does not allow element
"INPUT" here; missing one of "P", "H1", "H2", "H3", "H4", "H5",
"H6", "PRE", "DIV", "ADDRESS" start-tag .
<input size="20" name="sp-q">
and so on for each input...
Help, anyone please?
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
> The following markup causes the W3C validator to count 6 errors.
That's because it has six reportable markup errors.
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
In future, please post a URL, not a copy or extract of code.
If you don't understand why, you have a particular reason to do so.
> Error Line 14, column 28: document type does not allow element
> "INPUT" here; missing one of "P", "H1", "H2", "H3", "H4", "H5",
> "H6", "PRE", "DIV", "ADDRESS" start-tag .
>
> <input size="20" name="sp-q">
>
> and so on for each input...
Did you check what the document type you use has as the content model of
FORM?
The simple solution is to wrap everything inside the form in a DIV element
(<form ...><div>...</div></form>).
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Hywel Jenkins
dor...@optusnet.com.au says...
Have you tried putting the <p> ... <address> tags *inside* the form?
--
Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/
rf
> The following markup causes the W3C validator to count 6 errors.
>
<snip code>
> Error Line 14, column 28: document type does not allow element
> "INPUT" here; missing one of "P", "H1", "H2", "H3", "H4", "H5",
> "H6", "PRE", "DIV", "ADDRESS" start-tag .
Under the strict DTD a form may not contain inline elements.
That is why Jukka and Hywel sugested you put a block level element inside
the form to contain the input elements.
--
Cheers
Richard.
dorayme
>
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> The following markup causes the W3C validator to count 6 errors.
>
> That's because it has six reportable markup errors.
You don't say!
>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
>
> In future, please post a URL, not a copy or extract of code.
> If you don't understand why, you have a particular reason to do so.
------------------------------
If I had done this it would then have had 31 errors, 25 of which
would not be mine. You want that I should explain this? By the
time I did this, it would then be clear that what I actually did
is communicate the problem rather perfectly to you. There is
another reason I say this: you solved the problem for me in your
suggestion at the end! You are a cranky genius. I am a cranky
Martian. Look, Earthling, had you just said:
"Check what the document type you use has as the content model
of FORM! The simple solution is to wrap everything inside the
form in a DIV element. You owe me your best NZ joke"
then I would not only be grateful but I would then volunteer my
best (actually my only) Polish joke to you as an extra...
:)
dorayme
------------------------------
dorayme
> dor...@optusnet.com.au says...
>> The following markup causes the W3C validator to count 6 errors.
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
>>
>> <head>
>>
>> <title>A Title</title>
>>
>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
>> charset=iso-8859-1">
>>
>> </head>
>>
>> <body>
>>
>> <form method="get" action="http://search.atomz.com/search/">
>> <input size="20" name="sp-q">
snip
>>
>> Help, anyone please?
>
> Have you tried putting the <p> ... <address> tags *inside* the form?
>
I have now! Problem fixed along your suggested line. Thank you.
dorayme
Jukka K. Korpela
>> From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi>
>>
>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> The following markup causes the W3C validator to count 6 errors.
>>
>> That's because it has six reportable markup errors.
>
> You don't say!
I do, since you seem to be surprised at simple facts. Why did you use a
validator in the first place, if you don't know what validation is about.
>>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
>>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
>>
>> In future, please post a URL, not a copy or extract of code.
>> If you don't understand why, you have a particular reason to do so.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> If I had done this it would then have had 31 errors, 25 of which
> would not be mine.
Really? Then your page has 31 errors, not 6.
> You want that I should explain this?
No, I don't, and your page still has 31 errors. And the 25 are really your
fault too. _You_ decided to use a hosting service (let me guess... a "free"
hosting service) that contaminates your document with invalid markup.
Besides, _you_ asked for free help, so _you_ make it easy to us to see the
real problems and test your page easily.
> Look, Earthling, had you just said:
>
> "Check what the document type you use has as the content model
> of FORM! The simple solution is to wrap everything inside the
> form in a DIV element. You owe me your best NZ joke"
>
> then I would not only be grateful but I would then volunteer my
> best (actually my only) Polish joke to you as an extra...
Thank &Deity; I avoided that.
You still have to learn that this is not a helpdesk, there is no such thing
as a free lunch, and you ignored the chances of learning to fish, and asked
us not to try to teach you such things in the future. You preferred
swallowing a rather old cod. And you didn't even say thanks for all the
fish.
Jukka K. Korpela
> Have you tried putting the <p> ... <address> tags *inside* the form?
Why should she or he consider such things? There is no paragraph and no
author's address there.
Hywel Jenkins
jkor...@cs.tut.fi says...
> Hywel Jenkins <hywel....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Have you tried putting the <p> ... <address> tags *inside* the form?
>
> Why should she or he consider such things? There is no paragraph and no
> author's address there.
That's why I used the ellipses to save myself the aggro of copying the
entire list of possible elements.
--
Hywel
http://kibo.org.uk/
Neredbojias
....
> > then I would not only be grateful but I would then volunteer my
> > best (actually my only) Polish joke to you as an extra...
>
> Thank &Deity; I avoided that.
>
> You still have to learn that this is not a helpdesk, there is no such thing
> as a free lunch, and you ignored the chances of learning to fish, and asked
> us not to try to teach you such things in the future. You preferred
> swallowing a rather old cod. And you didn't even say thanks for all the
> fish.
I thought you sounded a bit like Zaphod.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
dorayme
>
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi>
>>>
>>> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following markup causes the W3C validator to count 6 errors.
>>>
>>> That's because it has six reportable markup errors.
>>
>> You don't say!
>
> I do, since you seem to be surprised at simple facts. Why did you use a
> validator in the first place, if you don't know what validation is about.
>
You do me and yourself a great disservice by these remarks. You
have completely misunderstood a simple humorous remark in
reaction to unnecessary sarcasm. You compound your mistake by
supposing that I am surprised by simple facts. You give no
evidence at all. Your attitude is one of great and unjustified
condescension.
You have misunderstood nearly every single thing except the very
thing I asked about, which you understood all too clearly and
were able to help (albeit in a most unpleasant manner) - showing
that all the stuff about url and the full context etc was
completely and utterly unnecessary in this particular case. I
took some trouble to isolate the context from a mass of stuff
that would have caused unnecessary and distracting comment (and
contrary to what you might unreasonably assume, I am the best
judge of this in this particular case). The real page that this
search form was on had no other validation mistakes whatsoever
and partly thanks to you, now has none.
For very occasional communication purposes with alt.html and
others, I have one of those free web hosting services. That is
where I would have put the form that was giving me trouble for
you to see. It was not necessary in this case. This would have
caused the extra errors. I know you will have retorts to this
and so on but you still do not understand the reasons for
everything and I am not going to sit here and type endlessly.
You would have been in no better position to assess the problem
had I posted a URL on this particular occasion.
>>> In future, please post a URL, not a copy or extract of code.
>>> If you don't understand why, you have a particular reason to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> If I had done this it would then have had 31 errors, 25 of which
>> would not be mine.
>
> Really? Then your page has 31 errors, not 6.
You don't say! (This time, maybe you will better understand this
remark, let me add some help here: :) )
>
>> You want that I should explain this?
>
> No, I don't,
No, of course, you are quite sure of yourself aren't you? Where does this
manner of yours come from? How did it happen? I am most interested in you
Earthlings...
> and your page still has 31 errors.
Wrong. You have jumped to conclusions. Your tone suggests that
there is a real page doing work somewhere with 31 errors. I
would as soon cut off my whole extremely handsome head than use
www.150.com to serve a website for a company customer of mine.
And don't jump to further wrong conclusions, I can see some here
looming.
> And the 25 are really your
> fault too. _You_ decided to use a hosting service (let me guess... a "free"
> hosting service) that contaminates your document with invalid markup.
You are the one making the deal out of this. I avoided the whole
thing beautifully and skilfully by what I wrote. In fact my post
was so damn good that I have printed it up and framed it and I
am looking at it right now, crying at its simple and succinct
beauty. You too found it so and immediately saw an answer. It
simply infuriated you that it was so perfect in spite of
breaking your wooden rule. The insolence of it! In this you were
Salieri to my Mozart... Relax old Pal and go and see Amadeus,
wonderful film.
>
> Besides, _you_ asked for free help, so _you_ make it easy to us to see the
> real problems and test your page easily.
Wrong again. This one shows a deep misunderstanding and is
thoroughly impudent in its implications. Do you suppose I am
here in some grubby pose to get free this or that from the
shopkeepers? How dare you! I did not ask for free help. Just as
I do not ask my friends for "free" help or make it known in such
a gauche manner that when I give it it is "for free"...
And I did make it easy. You had all the information you needed.
I had isolated the problem specifically to make it easy... You
have done me a serious injustice. You owe me a Polish joke,
never mind me giving you one - I won't hold my breath that a guy
like you will come good on this debt though!
>
>> Look, Earthling, had you just said:
>>
>> "Check what the document type you use has as the content model
>> of FORM! The simple solution is to wrap everything inside the
>> form in a DIV element. You owe me your best NZ joke"
>>
>> then I would not only be grateful but I would then volunteer my
>> best (actually my only) Polish joke to you as an extra...
>
> Thank &Deity; I avoided that.
>
> You still have to learn that this is not a helpdesk, there is no such thing
> as a free lunch, and you ignored the chances of learning to fish, and asked
> us not to try to teach you such things in the future. You preferred
> swallowing a rather old cod. And you didn't even say thanks for all the
> fish.
>
This is a most unnecessary, pretentious, out-of-context humourless set of
remarks that hides further misunderstandings. Go back and read my reply
(borrow some other eyes). I do not offer my best and only Polish joke if I
am not quite grateful. You have a lot to learn, young man, not only about
Martians but also about earthlings...
Have a nice day.
dorayme
Obvious
> You give no
> evidence at all. Your attitude is one of great and unjustified
> condescension.
Yep that sounds like Jukka!
Neredbojias
You have to make allowances for great men. Heck, just think of the
allowances you've made in the past for some not-so-great women!
Obvious
> You have to make allowances for great men
Great men yes Jukka no!
Over use of great undervalues the truly great!
Jukka K. Korpela
> You have misunderstood nearly every single thing except the very
> thing I asked about, which you understood all too clearly and
> were able to help (albeit in a most unpleasant manner) - showing
> that all the stuff about url and the full context etc was
> completely and utterly unnecessary in this particular case.
You seem to be babbling about something that looks utterly uninteresting.
Please do not start using anything that resembles a decent From field,
including your real name (especially if you accuse real people like me),
before you have something interesting to say. Thank you in advance.
dorayme
>
>> You have misunderstood nearly every single thing except the very
>> thing I asked about, which you understood all too clearly and
>> were able to help (albeit in a most unpleasant manner) - showing
>> that all the stuff about url and the full context etc was
>> completely and utterly unnecessary in this particular case.
>
> You seem to be babbling about something that looks utterly uninteresting.
>
> Please do not start using anything that resembles a decent From field,
> including your real name (especially if you accuse real people like me),
> before you have something interesting to say. Thank you in advance.
>
I am very disappointed to have to deal with you again on this
matter. I will try an experiment at the end to make the thread
stop. In the meantime, your bullying self must be answered. And
I will try to entertain the gallery and myself as best as I can.
I mean, Gee, one must try to enjoy what one can ...
Right, you are a real person. This is because you give your own
name and website (presumably?). It is comically sad that you
have to point to this as the only other strength you have
besides the one most folk admit, that you know about html/css.
It is truly pathetic and because you have been so rude and
insulting for so long, I don't mind saying so. What on earth is
the use of being a "real person" if you are such an awful one?
If you are a bully and continue to say unkind things (especially
to newbies, I have been watching you in action - appalled - for
some time), your property of realness is nothing to boast about.
In fact, it should be something to be thoroughly ashamed of.
When you say that I "seem to be babbling about something that
looks utterly uninteresting" I think you may be speaking in bad
faith. How uninteresting or unintelligible (the babbling bit) is
it to you? Many decent humans accused of episodes of unkind
behaviour and misunderstanding, given chapter and verse, would
pause to reflect, to apologise, to correct at least some things.
But not you of course! Go and read my previous post again, you
accused me of things, you made false assumptions and I pointed
them out. You presumably found your own accusations interesting
enough. Hello!
What exactly is the purpose of your post here except to further
insult me? My purpose was clear. It was twofold. To express my
displeasure at your unseemly insults. It was also to describe
the nature of them. You may think that because you know
something about html/css and because there are are a whole lot
of people likely unwilling to stand up to you, that your
insulting behaviour could not be so bad. I happen not to
subscribe to the view expressed and quite common that a "master
must be given leeway in bad behaviour". I do not like bullies, I
have seen you in action many times, especially with newbies and
you are a disgrace.
Your bullying, gauche, wooden ways can be seen in all kinds of
clubs and organizations. In chess clubs, for example, it is not
uncommon that some of the best players are truly rude and awful
people. Very real and very awful. They are kowtowed to by many
because of their power in the activity that brought the club
into being. Where you might be under a misapprehension is this:
while a club has a main activity, there are a whole lot of
supporting activities and manners that are important to the
success of it. There are usually very many other folk, some even
just as skilled, who are polite and decent and good natured on
the whole. So it is with alt.html
OK, this has been a mixed distraction for me and I should get
back to my unreal self's Martian unreal work. Ah, yes, I
promised to try to kill this thread. Here goes, it is supposed
to work judging by recent advice:
When I think of you old chap, I think Korpela, not Yucca. Why?
Because it fits the image I have of you, in a black SS uniform,
a prized officer in charge of captured spies under the reign of
... here comes the experiment folks... HITLER!
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
You go girl, er Martian! Don't say I didn't teach ya anything! ;-)
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com