Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?
Raymond Alexander
to validate the pages via W3C.org I get the FATAL ERROR message because the
pages don't have the proper DTD's. My pages are only prefaced by <html>.
My index page is a frame page and the banner, content, and main pages are
vanilla FrontPage 2002.
Will someone kindly enlighten me as to the proper DTD's for the these pages?
The sites I work with are www.remodelingassociation.com and
www.mansfieldwellness.com .
Thank you,
Ray Alexander ray...@worldnet.att.net
David Dorward
> I produce a couple of simple web sites on Frontpage 2002
Uh oh. Frontpage isn't very good at HTML.
> and when attempting to validate the pages via W3C.org I get the FATAL
> ERROR message because the pages don't have the proper DTD's. My pages are
> only prefaced by <html>.
> My index page is a frame page
http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/www/frames/
> Will someone kindly enlighten me as to the proper DTD's for the these
> pages?
Generally:
New documents should be HTML 4.01 Strict:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
Documents being converted from HTML 3.2 or tag soup should be HTML 4.01
Transitional:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
Frameset documents should be HTML 4.01 Frameset:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
--
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
Redesign in progress: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/
Microsoft announces IE is dead (so upgrade):
http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/2003/5/30/microsoft-announces-ie-is-dead
Shawn K. Quinn
First, ditch Frontpage, it's great at making IE sites but really lousy
at making Web sites. Once you've found a better editor, try the DOCTYPE
for HTML 4.01 Transitional:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
--
Shawn K. Quinn
Headless
>First, ditch Frontpage, it's great at making IE sites but really lousy
>at making Web sites.
Amen bro.
>Once you've found a better editor, try the DOCTYPE
>for HTML 4.01 Transitional:
>
><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
Ieeckkk, for a newly authored document? Strict please, transitional is
for legacy documents that cannot be updated.
Headless
Shawn K. Quinn
Nothing in the original post implied these were newly authored
sites/documents. If they are, then yes, strict is the way to go.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
David Dorward
> Nothing in the original post implied these were newly authored
> sites/documents.
When was Frontpage 2002 released? :)
Shawn K. Quinn
2003 02:50, David Dorward wrote:
> Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>
>> Nothing in the original post implied these were newly authored
>> sites/documents.
>
> When was Frontpage 2002 released? :)
Unfortunately, knowing Microsoft, sometime in middle to late 2001.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
Mark Parnell
Mark Parnell
>
>
> I do NOT use a DocType as such below:
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
> charset=iso-8859-1">
>
That is not a DOCTYPE - it is a meta hack for the character set information
your server should be sending. They are 2 very different animals.
> My pages will not validate unless I use Ver 3.something of the
> validator
You mean the HTML 3.0 DOCTYPE?
> and even then errors are evident.
Strangely enough, that's because your page contains invalid markup.
> Why should I care?
Standards are there for a reason.
> My pages function as I desire and are created for and traversed and
> tested for a variety of broswers.
What, IE 4, 5 *and* 6?
> I do not even use CSS.
>
Then you are about 5 years behind the times. You are making your job harder
for yourself. It is well worth the effort to learn CSS.
Stephen Poley
<losti...@123-universe.com> wrote:
>Ray,
> Contrary to what you've been offered here?
>I've been using FP in a very limited capacity for over four years with two
>websites of over 600 pages. Some of the pages are retunrned number one on
>searches. In one category I have the first four. My main page returns either
>9th or 14th in it's category, depending upon, which SE is used. I consider
>this acceptable. And even admirable.
<snip>
>My pages function as I desire and are created for and traversed and tested
>for a variety of broswers.
Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?
--
Stephen Poley
Stephen Poley
<losti...@123-universe.com> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Stephen Poley <>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:56:46 GMT, "lostinspace" wrote:
>>
>> > Contrary to what you've been offered here?
>> >I've been using FP in a very limited capacity for over four years with two
>> >websites of over 600 pages.
>> Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
>> non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
>> different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?
> It's not really important to me what "people here" desire to see.
>My interest was in assisting Ray.
>
>I use a munged email, the No archive option and no longer provide my URL's
>in Usenet because references are still dug from the archives seeking
>examples I provided 3-4 years ago for webpage examples (not of design but
>rather of use.)
>Besides you being from the Netherlands likely wouldn't get in my sites
>anyway. I have much of APNIC and RIPE denied.
So what are we to conclude from this? It looks very much like:
- you aren't authoring for the Web at all;
- your sites can't stand the light of day;
- nor can your Usenet posts.
I think Ray (and everyone else) can draw their conclusions.
Steve Pugh
>
>SUCH a commanding presence Stephen?
>In three hours (slighlty under,) there have been three visitors to those
>pages mentioned.
Assuming that the site in question is http://www.mi-harness.com/
then...
>One from the UK
... that will be me...
>and two from North America.
>One even visited my other site to read the about page.
>One even used an Opera browser.
... and so will that.
>This only supports my inclination that sites should be designed with goals
>in mind. Whether those goals or pages are relavant with the rest of the
>internet world is NOT important. Only that you reach the market you desire.
Presumably your market research showed that people into horses like
sites with black text and blue links on black backgrounds. Or didn't
you bother to test it with images turned off?
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Stephen Poley
<losti...@123-universe.com> wrote:
> I'm most definitely NOT authoring for you!
>I'm appalled by your arrogance!
I simply summarised what you just told us. If that's appalling arrogance
in your book, I guess that's up to you.
Steve Pugh
>Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> wrote:
>
>> Presumably your market research showed that people into horses like
>> sites with black text and blue links on black backgrounds. Or didn't
>> you bother to test it with images turned off?
>>
>Could you possibly share with me what "share" of the browser market views
>pages with images turned off?
What percentage would it need to be for you to give a damn?
My default browser background colour is not black, so for me to have
gotten black on black you had to take the conscience decision to set
the background and foreground colours to black. Care to tell us what
market research led you to make that decision?
The page I am referring to is
http://www.mi-harness.com/jiba/whanew.html
>Could you also share what assitance this carrying on provides to Ray's
>initial inquiry for assistance?
This is Usenet, not a help desk. The OP's question has already been
answered, the answer given by David Doward in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bdi2i3%24kvs%242%248302bc10%40news.demon.co.uk
says everything that I would have said on the topic.
We're now discussing issues arising from the given answers. It's part
of the peer review process that makes Usenet a valuable resource. If
you don't like people commenting on the answers you give then perhaps
you shouldn't give them.
Tim
>> Presumably your market research showed that people into horses like
>> sites with black text and blue links on black backgrounds. Or didn't
>> you bother to test it with images turned off?
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:51:06 GMT,
"lostinspace" <losti...@123-universe.com> wrote:
> More absurd irrelevant declarations?
> Could you possibly share with me what "share" of the browser market views
> pages with images turned off?
> Excluding the search engines and bots stealing content?
"Significantly" large numbers out of the ENTIRE world's population, that
you really should think about it.
Some of them doing so out of choice, to speed up browsing; and others
not from choice, because images never made it through to their browser,
for various different reasons (proxies, poor connections, more errors on
the original website, etc.).
Not having seen the pertinent message in the thread, or the site, but
going by Steve's comment, I'll make a generic comment:
When playing with background and foreground colours, you need to set all
of them to something sensible (including link colours), and not rely on
any browser defaults (there are none that you can "rely" on). Further,
when including background images, you need to take into account
foreground colour with the image, and foreground and background colours
for when the image hasn't loaded.
--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.
Nick Kew
at the keyboard of "lostinspace" <losti...@123-universe.com> wrote:
> Could you possibly share with me what "share" of the browser market views
> pages with images turned off?
Just over 50% of 1.5 million, last stats I looked at.
("Just over" means under 51%, so it really was very evenly split).
--
Nick Kew
In urgent need of paying work - see http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
Mark Parnell
>
> Your arroagnce in this mail (below) implies that YOU speak for
> everybody in this forum (including myself and Ray) and the world over
> as well. Unmistakeable arrogance and hardly summarization.
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Stephen Poley <>
>> Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 5:43 AM
>> Subject: Re: Frontpage 2002 - DOCTYPE ?
>>
>>>
>>> Well I'm sure some of the people here would be interested to see a
>>> non-bloated Front Page generated site which also displays well on
>>> different platforms. How about offering a URL or two?
>>>
>>> Stephen Poley
>>>
He simply asked for a URL (or two). And he did say *some* of the people
here. Hardly what you are accusing him of. In fact, almost the opposite.