XHTML Strict
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: XHTML Strict

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424

    XHTML Strict

    I never really cared about how "valid" my html code was (as long as it works, no?), but now I have to for school... and it has to be Strict XHTML.

    Like it's not enough that tables are absolutely horrible to figure out in Strict XHTML, someone decided that target="_blank" isn't valid anymore?!? Apparently, the reason is the W3C's Guideline 10.1:
    Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user.
    Pfffttt... What's funny is that the "solution" to this problem you'll find all over is JAVASCRIPT (apparently, the W3C Validator will validate the script as strict XHTML). Every time I want a target to open in a new window, I have to use JAVASCRIPT??? And that's better than target blank how?

    Is this really where web design is going?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    394
    surely the XHTML spec isn't concerned with javascript, or with what javascript can or can't do? as long as you have your <SCRIPT type="text/javascript"> it should be happy. no? you can maybe do the same with vbscript? or using some flash voodoo?

    strangely enough, i never used the target= method, and always went for the window.open(); though now i don't bother popping up windows at all.

    in other news, try doing an <img onload="function();" src="x.gif"> in a HTML 4.01 doc.

    whereas it works with all modern browsers, it never made it into the HTML 4.01 spec, and so your page won't validate. same goes for a <BODY onload="">, has to be moved into <SCRIPT> window.onload = "what"; </SCRIPT>, so HTML doesn't have to care about it any more.

    i bet all those flash multimedia-types comin' from where ever it is they come from are going to have a lot of fun with this stuff.
    Hmm...theres something a little peculiar here. Oh i see what it is! the sentence is talking about itself! do you see that? what do you mean? sentences can\'t talk! No, but they REFER to things, and this one refers directly-unambigeously-unmistakably-to the very sentence which it is!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    175
    <SCRIPT type="text/javascript"> it should be happy. no?
    No. W3 says, "element "SCRIPT" undefined." It should be <script type="text/javascript"></script>
    \"And life is what we make it. Always has been, always will be.\"

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    394
    Originally posted here by :Singh:
    No. W3 says, "element "SCRIPT" undefined." It should be <script type="text/javascript"></script>
    thanks for that. excellent contribution.

    using upper case still is acceptable for HTML 4.01 Transitional, which from the context of the last post, you should guess that it's what i'm writing at the minute. no? aah well.

    anyway...

    ...as long as you have your <script type="text/javascript"> XHTML 1.0 (or xhtml 1.0) should be happy. no?

    W3C, from an xHTML perspective, is not bothered what's between those tags, and doesn't care what javascript (or is that JavaScript) can or can't do, so long as it's contained within those tags, and not scattered throughout the doc?

    it's like putting invalid CSS into an xHTML doc, it will still validate as xHTML, so it will.
    Hmm...theres something a little peculiar here. Oh i see what it is! the sentence is talking about itself! do you see that? what do you mean? sentences can\'t talk! No, but they REFER to things, and this one refers directly-unambigeously-unmistakably-to the very sentence which it is!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •