I thought I'd turn to the experts....(OK flattery over! 
)<br />
<br />
I have to say I'm new to html....and have had a new toy thrust on me....namely Dreamweaver MX....oh and a challenge.<br />
I have to do some html work...but it MUSt conform to html 3.2 and javascript 1.1 ONLY. How can I ensure that I do this??<br />
<!--content-->hint: it would help if you placed the topic of your post in the Subject line, this way it would help people know what you are talking about<br />
<br />
ummm. To get valid HTML go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/">http://validator.w3.org/</a><!-- m --><!--content-->logic, to the best of my knowledge, if you code to HTML 4.01 it WILL confirm to HTML 3.2. I don't think there was much added to 4.01, but there was plenty in 3.2 that was deprecated for 4.01.<br />
<br />
Now a question - WHY? Why would you have to conform to 3.2 - it's out of date, it's superceded, people who use older browsers aren't going to be better off because of it, and you just run the risk of restricting functionality in newer browsers. It's flat out silly.<br />
<br />
Neil<!--content-->It's not silly, Neil. It all depends on *why* this has to be done. Considering the age of the versions Logic *must* use, I'd say either it's a school project or it's a project designed to be used on older computers. Perhaps a sample/demo to show what benefits there are to upgrading?<br />
<br />
It's a personal opinion, but *why* doesn't really matter, and claiming that it's "silly" is rather... impolite? <br />
<br />
Having said that...<br />
<br />
Logic, I'm not sure how it works on MX, but with DW3, I can create a "browser profile" that will allow me to specify which tags are permitted. Check your destruction manual for that - or maybe check out the Macromedia site. <br />
<br />
I know there's a drop-down menu that you can use to specify the browser/version you want the pages to conform to, but for the life of me, I can't remember where it is on mine. <br />
<br />
Does that help a bit?<br />
<br />
Peg<!--content-->Originally posted by Pegasus <br />
It's a personal opinion, but *why* doesn't really matter, and claiming that it's "silly" is rather... impolite? <br />
... Actually it's neither an opinion nor impolite. There are reasons why the HTML standards have been upgraded and why HTML 3 is no longer a standard at all. Coding now to specifically not to conform to HTML 4 or XHTML 1 is silly.<br />
<br />
And as far as I'm concerned if I'm asked to give someone help that help includes my professional views on what they're trying to do. I also feel fully entitled to ask questions, including "why?". <br />
<br />
In fact, blindly telling someone how to do something and at the same time not enquiring about reasons or failing to point out that what they're trying to do is ill-advised is actually NOT giving help at all.<br />
<br />
Those who don't like it can ignore my help, but I'll continue to give it in the manner I best see fit. <br />
<br />
While I'm at it, to the best of my knowledge you can set DW MX to write valid XHTML code, but not a specific HTML standard. However, if you go to "Edit"..."Preferences"...."Validator" you can set it to validate the markup for HTML 3.2. Then when you've written the code for a page you simply go to "File"..."Check Page"..."Validate Markup"<br />
<br />
Neil<!--content-->>> There are reasons why the HTML standards have been upgraded and why HTML 3 is no longer a standard at all. <<<br />
<br />
As long as the HTML page includes the DOCTYPE declaration, and you use only tags that are specified in the HTML 3.2 standard, then there is no reason at all why you cannot produce a valid HTML 3.2 document. The validator at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/">http://validator.w3.org/</a><!-- m --> will help you to get things just right.<br />
<br />
If you want a bit more flexibility of code, and the ability to add CSS later on, and so on, then I would encourage you to look instead at using HTML 4.01 Transitional, but you don't have to. As long as you produce valid and well-formed code, browsers will render it.<br />
<br />
The point about using a DOCTYPE statement as the very first line of the file is simply that this serves as an identifier for what sort of document it is. Curent browsers still support all of the old HTML versions, but use Quirks Mode (read that as "best guess") for any document that does not specify a DOCTYPE at the beginning.<br />
<br />
<br />
In a similar way, Microsoft Word Version 1.0 is very much obsolete, but the new Office XP (includes Word version 10 or 11 is that?) can still understand that very old version of the file format.<!--content-->
)<br /><br />
I have to say I'm new to html....and have had a new toy thrust on me....namely Dreamweaver MX....oh and a challenge.<br />
I have to do some html work...but it MUSt conform to html 3.2 and javascript 1.1 ONLY. How can I ensure that I do this??<br />
<!--content-->hint: it would help if you placed the topic of your post in the Subject line, this way it would help people know what you are talking about<br /><br />
ummm. To get valid HTML go to <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/">http://validator.w3.org/</a><!-- m --><!--content-->logic, to the best of my knowledge, if you code to HTML 4.01 it WILL confirm to HTML 3.2. I don't think there was much added to 4.01, but there was plenty in 3.2 that was deprecated for 4.01.<br />
<br />
Now a question - WHY? Why would you have to conform to 3.2 - it's out of date, it's superceded, people who use older browsers aren't going to be better off because of it, and you just run the risk of restricting functionality in newer browsers. It's flat out silly.<br />
<br />
Neil<!--content-->It's not silly, Neil. It all depends on *why* this has to be done. Considering the age of the versions Logic *must* use, I'd say either it's a school project or it's a project designed to be used on older computers. Perhaps a sample/demo to show what benefits there are to upgrading?<br />
<br />
It's a personal opinion, but *why* doesn't really matter, and claiming that it's "silly" is rather... impolite? <br />
<br />
Having said that...<br />
<br />
Logic, I'm not sure how it works on MX, but with DW3, I can create a "browser profile" that will allow me to specify which tags are permitted. Check your destruction manual for that - or maybe check out the Macromedia site. <br />
<br />
I know there's a drop-down menu that you can use to specify the browser/version you want the pages to conform to, but for the life of me, I can't remember where it is on mine. <br />
<br />
Does that help a bit?<br />
<br />
Peg<!--content-->Originally posted by Pegasus <br />
It's a personal opinion, but *why* doesn't really matter, and claiming that it's "silly" is rather... impolite? <br />
... Actually it's neither an opinion nor impolite. There are reasons why the HTML standards have been upgraded and why HTML 3 is no longer a standard at all. Coding now to specifically not to conform to HTML 4 or XHTML 1 is silly.<br />
<br />
And as far as I'm concerned if I'm asked to give someone help that help includes my professional views on what they're trying to do. I also feel fully entitled to ask questions, including "why?". <br />
<br />
In fact, blindly telling someone how to do something and at the same time not enquiring about reasons or failing to point out that what they're trying to do is ill-advised is actually NOT giving help at all.<br />
<br />
Those who don't like it can ignore my help, but I'll continue to give it in the manner I best see fit. <br />
<br />
While I'm at it, to the best of my knowledge you can set DW MX to write valid XHTML code, but not a specific HTML standard. However, if you go to "Edit"..."Preferences"...."Validator" you can set it to validate the markup for HTML 3.2. Then when you've written the code for a page you simply go to "File"..."Check Page"..."Validate Markup"<br />
<br />
Neil<!--content-->>> There are reasons why the HTML standards have been upgraded and why HTML 3 is no longer a standard at all. <<<br />
<br />
As long as the HTML page includes the DOCTYPE declaration, and you use only tags that are specified in the HTML 3.2 standard, then there is no reason at all why you cannot produce a valid HTML 3.2 document. The validator at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/">http://validator.w3.org/</a><!-- m --> will help you to get things just right.<br />
<br />
If you want a bit more flexibility of code, and the ability to add CSS later on, and so on, then I would encourage you to look instead at using HTML 4.01 Transitional, but you don't have to. As long as you produce valid and well-formed code, browsers will render it.<br />
<br />
The point about using a DOCTYPE statement as the very first line of the file is simply that this serves as an identifier for what sort of document it is. Curent browsers still support all of the old HTML versions, but use Quirks Mode (read that as "best guess") for any document that does not specify a DOCTYPE at the beginning.<br />
<br />
<br />
In a similar way, Microsoft Word Version 1.0 is very much obsolete, but the new Office XP (includes Word version 10 or 11 is that?) can still understand that very old version of the file format.<!--content-->