/    Sign up×
Community /Pin to ProfileBookmark

Please help this newb

Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
Feb 20.2006

I have to admit that I’m kinda new to the game of website developement. So far I’m learning quickly and liking it. As my knowledge grows, I add some of this knowledge to the websites.

Sorry for the preamble. To the point.

I cannot get my webpages to validate. The process I have employed so far involved 1. Discovering that I need to have a DTD at the top of the document. 2. Trying different doctypes all to no avail. 3. Trying to search out web pages that could help me. Which leads me to here.

Initially, the validators closest guess as to which doctype header I should be using is html 4.01 transitional but then immediately tells me that this is not correct and will cause all the rest of the errors because the doctype is wrong. So hopefully, I can provide a link in this post and have some of you experts go there, look at the code, then hopefully reply with what would be a correct header for that page. Then I can use that information to apply to all the other pages within the site. Hopefully I have explained my problem sufficiently , if not, I’ll supply any more details as necessesary.

Here is the link to one of the pages in question: [url]http://www.fetishflair.net/home01.htm[/url]

All the other links on the page are invalid with respect to the above problem.

to post a comment
Full-stack Developer

9 Comments(s) ↴

Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@KravvitzFeb 20.2006 — Why are you using an XHTML doctype?

Your <a> elements are missing their end tags.

Your <li> elements are missing their end tags.

[url=http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200412/the_alt_and_title_attributes/]The alt attribute is required on <img> elements.[/url]

This is a bit old, but much of what it says is relevant -- [url=http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~mudws/font.html]What's wrong with the FONT element?[/url]


[url=http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/index.html]Why tables for layout is stupid[/url]

[url=http://davespicks.com/essays/notables.html]Why avoiding tables (for layout) is important[/url]

[url=http://www.workingwith.me.uk/tablefree/why/]Why go table free?[/url]

[url=http://www.sitepoint.com/article/tables-vs-css/]Tables Vs. CSS - A Fight to the Death[/url]

[url=http://www.phrogz.net/CSS/WhyTablesAreBadForLayout.html]Why Tables Are Bad (For Layout) Compared to Semantic HTML + CSS[/url]

[url=http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/dead_layout/]The layout is dead, long live the layout[/url]

[url=http://evolt.org/article/Tables_or_CSS_Choosing_a_layout/25/21429/]Tables or CSS: Choosing a layout[/url]
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@PrizefighterauthorFeb 20.2006 — Thanks for the reply. I checked out those links and I feel like a larger idiot. So much to learn.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, on the URL in my opening post, what should my DOCTYPE be? I just learned of this term like last week, thats how late and ignorant of this stuff I am.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@KravvitzFeb 20.2006 — Right now your code most closely fits the HTML 4.01 Transitional doctype.

HTML 4.01 Strict is better though.

http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/

http://www.juicystudio.com/choosing-doctype/

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@PrizefighterauthorFeb 20.2006 — Strange that when I run through the html validator, it says level of html unknown.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@PrizefighterauthorFeb 20.2006 — So basically, I should set it to the html 4.01 strict, then correct the other errors that show up. I thought at first that the tag and syntax errors and whatnot were there because the doctype was wrong.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@KravvitzFeb 20.2006 — So basically, I should set it to the html 4.01 strict, then correct the other errors that show up.[/QUOTE]
Correct.
I thought at first that the tag and syntax errors and whatnot were there because the doctype was wrong.[/QUOTE]
No, that's not how it works.
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@PrizefighterauthorFeb 21.2006 — I think I confused myself again. I ran another validator site at the w3c website and in a big red bar it says that "This page is NOT valid 4.01 strict!"

Just to be sure...it says that only because of all the errors that follow and NOT because I should not be using 4.01 strict at all. Is that a correct conclusion?
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@KravvitzFeb 21.2006 — Yes, it says that because of all of the errors.

[url=http://www.dynamicsitesolutions.com/html/mistakes/]I suggest you take a look at this.[/url]
Copy linkTweet thisAlerts:
@PrizefighterauthorFeb 21.2006 — Thanks. Will do.
×

Success!

Help @Prizefighter spread the word by sharing this article on Twitter...

Tweet This
Sign in
Forgot password?
Sign in with TwitchSign in with GithubCreate Account
about: ({
version: 0.1.9 — BETA 5.3,
whats_new: community page,
up_next: more Davinci•003 tasks,
coming_soon: events calendar,
social: @webDeveloperHQ
});

legal: ({
terms: of use,
privacy: policy
});
changelog: (
version: 0.1.9,
notes: added community page

version: 0.1.8,
notes: added Davinci•003

version: 0.1.7,
notes: upvote answers to bounties

version: 0.1.6,
notes: article editor refresh
)...
recent_tips: (
tipper: @Yussuf4331,
tipped: article
amount: 1000 SATS,

tipper: @darkwebsites540,
tipped: article
amount: 10 SATS,

tipper: @Samric24,
tipped: article
amount: 1000 SATS,
)...