Thunderbird's use of <blockquote type="cite"> not W3C Conform?
Peter Lairo
Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
The browser you can trust: www.GetFirefox.com
Reclaim Your Inbox: www.GetThunderbird.com
Peter Lairo
Betsy Garfield
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
>
> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
That doesn't look right. Here's an example:
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE="http://www.bibliomania.com/yadayada.html">
<P>He pointed his finger in friendly jest and went over to the parapet,
laughing to himself. ...
</BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/block/blockquote.html
Holger Metzger
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
>
> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
According to
http://de.selfhtml.org/html/text/zitate_adressen.htm#uri_angabe (sorry,
German only) it is indeed not part of the HTML standard. The site claims
it's a Netscape 4.x tag (so it might be a legacy thing). But then again,
the site could be wrong.
--
Holger
Holger Metzger
Yep, that would be the HTML 4 standard. In addition to that there's
<blockquote type="cite"> which is used in Mozilla (and Thunderbird) to
mark quotations with a vertical bar. See my other reply to Peter.
--
Holger
C A Upsdell
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
>
> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
The BLOCKQUOTE attribute CITE is in the HTML 4.01 specification, e.g. as in:
<blockquote cite="http://www.mozilla.org">...</blockquote>
But a BLOCKQUOTE attribute TYPE is not in the HTML 4.01 specification.
Mumia W. (using mozilla)
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote
> type="cite"> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote
> in W3C.
>
> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
I'm not totally sure, but that might be right. I know that the "type"
attribute is not part of the [1]HTML 4.01 specification. I'm testing if
the "type" attribute shows up right now.
Yes, that's right. TB 1.5.0.7 [2]uses the type attribute on the
blockquote element, and that's not strictly valid. However, the document
is advertised as [3]HTML 4.01 Transitional. With the traditional dtd,
[4]HTML [5]tidy program doesn't have any problem with it. If I change
the file to use the [6]strict dtd, HTML tidy calls the "type" attribute
"proprietary," but that's only a warning--not an error.
Perhaps it's useful (or not) to compare the proprietary "type" attribute
that TB uses to Microsoft's [7]VML.
--
[8]paduille.4...@earthlink.net
References
1. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2
2. http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emumia.w.18.spam/blockquote.html
3. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/sgml/loosedtd.html
4. http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/
5. http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/
6. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd
7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Vector%20Markup%20Language
8. mailto:paduille.4...@earthlink.net
Mumia W. (using mozilla)
> On 10/01/2006 03:39 PM, Peter Lairo wrote:
>> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
>> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote
>> type="cite"> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote
>> in W3C.
>>
>> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
>> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
>
> Yes, that's right. [...]
You can see the blockquote + text attribute in action here:
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Emumia.w.18.spam/blockquote.txt
Mark Tyndall
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
That appears to be true, for HTML 4.01 at least:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2
Regards,
Mark..
--
British English localisations of:
SeaMonkey <http://www.tyndall.org.uk/moz_en-gb.html>
Firefox <http://www.tyndall.org.uk/fb_en-gb.html>
Thunderbird <http://www.tyndall.org.uk/tb_en-gb.html>
Peter Lairo
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
>
> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
Thanks for all your knowledgeable responses.
So the consensus seems to be that Thunderbird is using invalid HTML,
even though Mozilla.com claims "Support for open Web standards" (albeit
for Firefox).
Does OutLook Express 6 do it better (albeit pretty overloaded)?
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Isn't there some standards-compliant way to achieve the same or similar
thing as <blockquote type="cite">? How badly does Thunderbird need
type="cite"?
BTW: I have two reasons why this interests me:
1. I want Mozilla products to be as standards-compliant as possible.
2. It's hard to argue that mozilla products are standards-compliant,
when others keep throwing these kinds of valid arguments at me.
PS. My friend just pointed me to the (obvious :-[ ) way of testing this:
1. go to http://validator.w3.org/
2. paste, under "Validate by Direct Input":
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Mozilla</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Mozilla</h1>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Thunderbird's proprietary attribute</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
3. Click on [Check]
4. Result: Error Line 8 column 17: there is no attribute "TYPE".
Mike Cowperthwaite
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
>
> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
Andrew DeFaria
cite="mid45F366B1BC4F7C4A89...@dbde01.ent.ti.com"
type="cite">".
Outlook just throws quoted material on the bottom and encourages top posting. Now not getting into the top posting vs bottom posting debate, I'm a firm believer of inline quoting (in most cases) and "trim the fat". When I have an exchange with an Outlook user I quote and comment inline. Invariably they then attempt to respond in kind but lacking good quoting capabilities they switch to coloring their responses. As the exchange continues I usually wait for their crayon box to run out and almost every time they stop corresponding. Great way to kill email debates! ;-)
In any event, some simple, standardized (and did I say simple) way of quoting stuff has never been totally agreed upon but I agree that whatever TB puts out should be "standard".
Of interest though, you can type <blockquote type=cite> in say blogging software and both FF and IE render it as expected...
--Andrew DeFaria
Work: 214-549-0855
Cell: 214-289-1959
The Definition of an Upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in.
Ron K.
Interesting info in comments #1 and #2 I and conclude that "type=cite"
could be replaced with "class=cite". This would be standards compliant
and easy to fix. The fix is search & replace the source code to exchange
the two strings. Same fix applied to extensions and were able to keep the
existing Mozilla display preferences with all there built in rules.
To my notion, this could be put in place for a 1.5.0.x update as well as a
2.0.1 update. This plan has the strength of respecting the 2.0 lockdown.
--
Ron K.
Don't be a fonted, it's just type casting.
michaeljgru...@fastmail.fm
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
>
> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
What language is "W3C" supposed to be? HTML? XHTML? Which version?
Sorry, but if your friend really asks for "valid W3C" code then he
doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Is this about the code Thunderbird uses internally for displaying
e-mails or about the code produced by Thunderbird's composer? I assume
the latter - TB can do internally whatever does the job.
OK, enough barking up the wrong tree ;)
http://validator.w3.org/ has a simple paste & check interface. Running
through a sample HTML message produced by TB (a reply) reveals three
errors against "HTML 4.01 Transitional" (which TB claims as a DOCTYPE):
1. end tag for "HEAD" which is not finished
The reason being: There is no title element. TB probably should include
the subject as a title.
2. there is no attribute "TYPE" (on "blockquote")
This is probably what your friend refers to. Use of "class" rather than
"type" would be better (this validates).
3. there is no attribute "WRAP" (on "pre")
Another gotcha (I replied to a plain text message, therefore the "pre").
For specifying word wrap, TB should use CSS (probably inline) with the
"white-space" property set to "normal", "pre" or "nowrap".
Making the three changes indicated above results in valid HTML 4.01
Transitional. In conclusion I think you brought up some valid concerns
about the HTML produced by TB's HTML composer. I don't use HTML mail,
and I don't know how many people do. This would probably determine
whether there is enough interest in correcting TB's behaviour. "100%
valid e-mails" may make for nice marketing, but my impression is there
is not much marketing behind TB (compared to FF).
Cheers,
Michael
michaeljgru...@fastmail.fm
Thanks for the link. Interestingly, the W3C note on HTML threading
(mentioned in comment #1 of that bug) contains a sample message which is
not valid HTML 4.01 Transitional: The head section contains no title
element. So, at least in this respect TB follows W3C's suggestions by
violating W3C's RFC ;)
Also, the sample message doesn't contain a DOCTYPE which is no good idea
either.
I see others see the marketing perspective (100% standards
compliant...), too, so maybe we should do something... Fixing TB's use
of BLOCKQUOTE and PRE is simple if we're willing to break compatibility
with existing customizations and extensions. For the title in the head
(what a phrase) I'd have to check the source first.
Michael
Peter Lairo
> Peter Lairo venit, vidit, dixit 2006-10-01 22:38:
>> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code in
>> Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote type="cite">
>> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of blockquote in W3C.
>>
>> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
>> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
>
> What language is "W3C" supposed to be? HTML? XHTML? Which version?
> Sorry, but if your friend really asks for "valid W3C" code then he
> doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Have you read this thread? My and others' posts?
My friend was, of course, was more specific about which W3C spec was
being broken by Thunderbird.
> http://validator.w3.org/ has a simple paste & check interface.
As I indicated in my previous post:
news://news.Mozilla.org:119/45215F6E...@Lairo.com
> Making the three changes indicated above results in valid HTML 4.01
> Transitional. In conclusion I think you brought up some valid concerns
> about the HTML produced by TB's HTML composer.
I think it is not a critical bug, as other UAs will ignore the invalid
HTML, but it's a bug nonetheless.
> I don't use HTML mail, and I don't know how many people do.
Very many people, likely the vast majority, compose in HTML. Think
corporate e-mails, newsletters, and e-mails sent by "normal" users with
plenty of smileys and huge fonts. ;-) :-D
> This would probably determine
> whether there is enough interest in correcting TB's behaviour.
I see very little interest in this bug (see graveyard atmosphere in
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183219), which is OK, as
long as developers are working on more important matters.
> "100%
> valid e-mails" may make for nice marketing, but my impression is there
> is not much marketing behind TB (compared to FF).
It's not primarily marketing that made Firefox so popular. It's a great
product while the competition was sleeping, and it's something every web
surfer uses (as opposed to an e-mail client).
The problem, IMHO, is that Thunderbird developers seem too focused on
things like RSS feeds and virtual folders, and not enough on valid HTML
e-mails, and things like:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108689
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35929
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74716
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218558
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218467
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=120273
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118665
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=220575 ARGH
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75927
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310158
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72399
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273008 ARGH
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11054
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=269432
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65710
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155622 ARGH
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13595
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=245607
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324495
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218557
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=223340
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=223909 ARGH
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338549 ARGH
Sorry, I got carried away listing the bugs *I* think are more important
than RSS and virtual folders. This list is, however, only 5% of the bugs
I'm watching for Thunderbird:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=substring&short_desc=&product=Core&product=Thunderbird&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=substring&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=substring&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=anywords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailreporter1=1&emailcc1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=lairo.com&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
Lame attempt to get rich: http://www.lairo.com/donations.html
Ron K.
10/4/2006 9:23 AM:
Your test brings into focus a significant head ache for users who want to
generate HTML enriched mail and or news messages. Compared to OE with
it's easy stationary abilities, TB is a DOS/UNIX primitive messaging tool.
Very early in the TB development (Pre 0.1 release) the multi-media testers
working in the netscape.test.multimedia group (port 563) on the
secnews.netscape.com server identified two major blocks of capabilities
missing. First group includes inability to use background images for
tables. The second group involves CSS issues where capabilities are not
present, conflict with HTML, or get stripped on send.
TB is in dire need of getting a basic HTML/CSS composer that gets things
right. Ability to put style sheets in the HTML <HEAD> where they belong
and not strip or munge them. Proper treatment of all javascript operators
without munging into HTML escaped equivalents. Full support of all HTML
4.01 tags that includes all valid attributes.
Unfortunately the composer has not evolved since it was ported from Moz
1.0. While the Nvu composer is far more capable, it is a Professional
Webmaster grade of tool. TB needs a home hobbyist grade tool with an ease
of use similar to the old Netscape Communicator or the MS OE products.
Presently TB is a great tool for simple communication that does not serve
the interests of those wanting to share with friends and family in a more
scrapbook style of communication.
»Q«
<news:45202757...@NOXXXSPAMLairo.com>:
> A friend of mine sais that Thunderbird doesn't use valid W3C code
> in Thunderbird. As prime example, he sais Tb uses <blockquote
> type="cite"> and that "type" is not an allowed attribute of
> blockquote in W3C.
>
> Could someone here knowledgeable in W3C defend the "honor" of
> Thunderbird and confirm or deny this claim?
Judging only from the recent post here,
<news:dJudnQb_ToSsBL_Y...@mozilla.org>, your friend is
right. It uses the DOCTYPE "HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN", which doesn't
allow a type attribute for the blockquote element. It also gives the
pre element a cols attribute, again not valid.
--
»Q«
Chris Jahn
news:4523B5D0...@fastmail.fm:
> What language is "W3C" supposed to be? HTML? XHTML? Which
> version? Sorry, but if your friend really asks for "valid W3C"
> code then he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Boy, are YOU ignorant. The W3C is the World Wide Web Consortium,
and they are solely responsible for defining the standards for
all the codes used on the internet.
Any code that does not meet the W3C standard is not valid code.
And if you don't know that, you don't know much.
--
Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.holgermetzger.de/net6e.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
Never go up against a Sicilian when death's on the line!
michaeljgru...@fastmail.fm
> michaeljgru...@fastmail.fm wrote in
> news:4523B5D0...@fastmail.fm:
>
>> What language is "W3C" supposed to be? HTML? XHTML? Which
>> version? Sorry, but if your friend really asks for "valid W3C"
>> code then he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
>
> Boy, are YOU ignorant. The W3C is the World Wide Web Consortium,
> and they are solely responsible for defining the standards for
> all the codes used on the internet.
Yes.
> Any code that does not meet the W3C standard is not valid code.
No. Or all my C and python code would be invalid. Seriously: W3C is the
World Wide Web Consortium, as you say. There is no "W3C standard". The
W3C defines various standards, such as HTML, XHTML, CSS in several
versions specified through document type definitions referenced in an
SGML declaration. A question about validity is invalid without
specifying the DTD to apply.
> And if you don't know that, you don't know much.
You're right. I can distinguish a consortium from a DTD. But that's not
much. Oida ouk eidos.
Michael
Sailfish
> michaeljgru...@fastmail.fm wrote in
> news:4523B5D0...@fastmail.fm:
>
>> What language is "W3C" supposed to be? HTML? XHTML? Which
>> version? Sorry, but if your friend really asks for "valid W3C"
>> code then he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
>
> Boy, are YOU ignorant. The W3C is the World Wide Web Consortium,
> and they are solely responsible for defining the standards for
> all the codes used on the internet.
>
> Any code that does not meet the W3C standard is not valid code.
> And if you don't know that, you don't know much.
>
"language" as is implied with the phrase "valid W3C".
Also, why the hostility? Even if someone is ignorant, your method of
enlightening them is unlikely to make them less so, imo.
--
Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.com/
Mozilla Themes: http://www.projectit.com/freestuff.html
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
.... it's good to have guys like Joji and JoeS around.... TF (Thanks Folks)
reg
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
You'll be interest to know That among the main signatories for W3C are
Apple That "tries" to abide by the "Guidelines". and MicroSoft; who use
there spot to try learn all the standards, so that they can figure out
how to break them so they can have sites written in such a way that the
viewer "has" no choice but to use IE to get in those sites. This as a
way to put a wedge between Mozilla Product Users and IE users. Among
such ungodly thing they do, is "self Healing" That way some one can
write terrible code and IE will supply all the missing parts. While
Mozilla products have web designers actually use all their brain and
create good code in order for it to be viewed correctly.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jahn
news:Bc-dnfErOLa4ZrnY...@mozilla.org:
>> Any code that does not meet the W3C standard is not valid
>> code.
>
> No. Or all my C and python code would be invalid. Seriously:
> W3C is the World Wide Web Consortium, as you say. There is no
> "W3C standard".
C and python are programming languages, not codes used in
composing web pages.
Are you really this stupid?
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
I'm sorry, I become inaudible when I am shy.
Christopher Jahn
news:DNednftkDvaEvbjY...@mozilla.org:
>
> Also, why the hostility? Even if someone is ignorant, your
> method of enlightening them is unlikely to make them less so,
> imo.
His attitude, more than anything else.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
I never met a repo man who didn't do speed.
Sailfish
> Sailfish <sail...@NOSPAMunforgettable.com> wrote in
> news:DNednftkDvaEvbjY...@mozilla.org:
>
>> Also, why the hostility? Even if someone is ignorant, your
>> method of enlightening them is unlikely to make them less so,
>> imo.
>
> His attitude, more than anything else.
>
Peter Lairo
> Christopher Jahn venit, vidit, dixit 2006-10-06 03:36:
>> Are you really this stupid?
>
> how stupid I am. I'm communicating with a certain sense of irony (comes
> from my nature). That's how stupid I am. Obviously, my use of
> "Seriously" immediately after that statement was not clear enough an
> indication of the not so serious nature of the immediately preceding
> statement. That's how stupid I am.
>
> You really helped me learn a lot from this thread, and I will refrain
> from any irony and from any taking literally in my further posts, at
> least in this thread, at least when replying to you; I promise this
> won't happen again.
I actually enjoy your light-hearted way of writing, and the meaning
comes through quite well.
Don't let Christopher get to you. I've had encounters with him in the
past and have read other posts by him. He is frequently needlessly mean
and aggressive. Makes one wonder what possessed his parents to call him
CHRISTopher...
Christopher Jahn
news:yKydne_VQaFY2bvY...@mozilla.org:
> Makes one wonder what possessed his parents to call him
> CHRISTopher...
Because I like storming the temple and flipping all the tables
over.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the
universe.