I don't think there's Javascript in my .CSS file, but when I viewed source from a page on my site, there was a Javascript declaration there. I can't see it in my local files. There's only the declaration, and the closing one as well; no sign of any actual javascript in the html. (I'm not up to XHTML yet, but one day will get there, I trust, as well as DHTML).
Could it be that my server is providing a Javascript declaration, in case I want to use it? Or does it think there's Javascript stuff in my HTML code? I don't think there is, but with me, you'd never know what might be there that I don't see. <hehe>
I feel very sure that my carolstyle.css has no Javascript. I think. <g>.
Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:30:27 (PST)Its hard to say where its coming from and i doubt you wrote any scripts you've forgotten cos you don't know how to write them by the sounds. So it'd probably be at a guess either your server writing it in there (though I've never experienced it) or your software. The software is the major suspect here? What are you using? A WYSIWYG like DreamWeaver of FrontPage? Usually its better to hunt out some of that stuff depending on it not breaking your site of course after you've finished in the WYSIWYG editor.
A better idea if you posted either the code and CSS or maybe just need the specific javascript you're talking about to see what it does.
Hope that is of some assistance, though it sounds roundabout and convoluted I'll confess...
Oh and XHTML is no big mystery, mainly you just use a closing slash on single tag elements like <img/> and make sure all of your <li> tags close </li>. Don't be scared of it, its really very tame. If you know HTML you can XHTML till the cows come home in 1 easy lesson.
Originally posted by porco
Oh and XHTML is no big mystery, mainly you just use a closing slash on single tag elements like <img/> and make sure all of your <li> tags close </li>. Don't be scared of it, its really very tame. If you know HTML you can XHTML till the cows come home in 1 easy lesson. Don't believe anybody who thinks that XHTML is easy. There is a great deal to XHTML with lots of pit falls. And to make things worse, as far as posting things on the web is concerned, there is absolutely no advantage in using XHTML. Best to stick with HTML 4.01 Strict.Ummm not even going to get into that one tonight buddy. I'm off work for the day and you can google your guts out on it for all I care. I think the "I'm afraid of XHTML that'll ruin the world for me" has worn a bit thin for the day. Sorry. If you think its 'too hard' then you shouldn't develop in it and I understand what you mean. To each his own weapons in the trenches is what I say, battle on... Originally posted by porco
Ummm not even going to get into that one tonight buddy. I'm off work for the day and you can google your guts out on it for all I care. I think the "I'm afraid of XHTML that'll ruin the world for me" has worn a bit thin for the day. Sorry. If you think its 'too hard' then you shouldn't develop in it and I understand what you mean. To each his own weapons in the trenches is what I say, battle on... I don't fear XHTML, I fear people who don't understand it and use it incorrectly. And as these boards are here to teach, it is very important not to tell people that XHTML is HTML with a few extra slashes.
If you want to know XHTML then you need to read the XHTML™ 1.0 Specification (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/">http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/</a><!-- m -->). It is pretty short because it tells you to go read the HTML 4.01 Specification (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/">http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/</a><!-- m -->) and the XML 1.0 Specification (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210">http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210</a><!-- m -->). But do read the XHTML specification if you are going to use XHTML. It lists the pitfalls, the ways that XHTML is incompatable with HTML browsers. Or better yet, read the HTML 4.01 Specification (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/">http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/</a><!-- m -->) and then stop. You'll be happier and your pages will work on more browsers.yada yada dude... I happen to have read them too and my view is instead of making it out to be a mysterious evil hard thing you should look at it closely. Why is it hard? Is ASP or PHP or JavaScript hard? End of thread as far as I'm concerned dude. Sorry if I offended you but what's right for you ain't right for all... get used to it. Maybe I'm smarter than you then lol. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ......
as for what jack frost rant you're on at work today leave me out of it pleasssssseeeee I DON'T CARE... The thread was about the lady having some excess javascript in her code... please stick to topic and avoid blatantly attacking people for using different methodologies and having different opinions than you. Each is equal as far as I can see, neither is ultimately righter than the next.
Please take your soapbox with you... goodnight.
HTML 4 and XHTML are both standards right? So what's being broken? I really wonder about you one issue guys. The most dangerous men in the world have 1 issue y'know, that's fanaticism. Sorry I showed you the red flag of .......Take a look under the hood at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nortypig.com/">http://www.nortypig.com/</a><!-- m --> . I believe that is your work; and I tip my hat to you for using the Strict DTD. However, near the top we find...
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@import url(stylesheets/styles.css);
-->
</style>
Which is all perfectly valid XHTML™ 1.0. The problem is that it is possible to write perfectly valid XHTML that is problematic nonetheless. From the XHTML™ 1.0 Specification:
Use external style sheets if your style sheet uses < or & or ]]> or --. Use external scripts if your script uses < or & or ]]> or --. Note that XML parsers are permitted to silently remove the contents of comments. Therefore, the historical practice of "hiding" scripts and style sheets within "comments" to make the documents backward compatible is likely to not work as expected in XML-based user agents.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines">http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines</a><!-- m --> It would appear that you know a great deal less than you think that you know. Please stop spreading ignorance on these boards.geez your a goose. Look further and you'll see I'm validating as XHTML but delivering mime type text/html so all they're getting is HTML. Stop being an idiot and leave me to do some work fool...Originally posted by porco
geez your a goose. Look further and you'll see I'm validating as XHTML but delivering mime type text/html so all they're getting is HTML. Stop being an idiot and leave me to do some work fool... Nonetheless, it does demonstrate that there is a great deal more to XHTML. And there is absolutely no advantage in it.
And one wonders, Why are you writing in XHTML something that will not work in an XHTML browser but telling browsers to ignore the slashes and pretend that it is HTML? Wouldn't a sane person just use HTML?and? and I break the web how? It is 11:04pm in Tasmania and I need to finish some work then sleep. Please cease attacking me for your entertainment and do some work..... goodnight 4 eva
luv u tooI don't think I need to comment here.
Sorry CarolW, I'm afraid you'll have to start a new thread since it's been sidelined into another of these arguments over (x)html...
Could it be that my server is providing a Javascript declaration, in case I want to use it? Or does it think there's Javascript stuff in my HTML code? I don't think there is, but with me, you'd never know what might be there that I don't see. <hehe>
I feel very sure that my carolstyle.css has no Javascript. I think. <g>.
Mon, 06 Dec 2004 20:30:27 (PST)Its hard to say where its coming from and i doubt you wrote any scripts you've forgotten cos you don't know how to write them by the sounds. So it'd probably be at a guess either your server writing it in there (though I've never experienced it) or your software. The software is the major suspect here? What are you using? A WYSIWYG like DreamWeaver of FrontPage? Usually its better to hunt out some of that stuff depending on it not breaking your site of course after you've finished in the WYSIWYG editor.
A better idea if you posted either the code and CSS or maybe just need the specific javascript you're talking about to see what it does.
Hope that is of some assistance, though it sounds roundabout and convoluted I'll confess...
Oh and XHTML is no big mystery, mainly you just use a closing slash on single tag elements like <img/> and make sure all of your <li> tags close </li>. Don't be scared of it, its really very tame. If you know HTML you can XHTML till the cows come home in 1 easy lesson.
Originally posted by porco Oh and XHTML is no big mystery, mainly you just use a closing slash on single tag elements like <img/> and make sure all of your <li> tags close </li>. Don't be scared of it, its really very tame. If you know HTML you can XHTML till the cows come home in 1 easy lesson.
Don't believe anybody who thinks that XHTML is easy. There is a great deal to XHTML with lots of pit falls. And to make things worse, as far as posting things on the web is concerned, there is absolutely no advantage in using XHTML. Best to stick with HTML 4.01 Strict.Ummm not even going to get into that one tonight buddy. I'm off work for the day and you can google your guts out on it for all I care. I think the "I'm afraid of XHTML that'll ruin the world for me" has worn a bit thin for the day. Sorry. If you think its 'too hard' then you shouldn't develop in it and I understand what you mean. To each his own weapons in the trenches is what I say, battle on... Originally posted by porco Ummm not even going to get into that one tonight buddy. I'm off work for the day and you can google your guts out on it for all I care. I think the "I'm afraid of XHTML that'll ruin the world for me" has worn a bit thin for the day. Sorry. If you think its 'too hard' then you shouldn't develop in it and I understand what you mean. To each his own weapons in the trenches is what I say, battle on...
I don't fear XHTML, I fear people who don't understand it and use it incorrectly. And as these boards are here to teach, it is very important not to tell people that XHTML is HTML with a few extra slashes. If you want to know XHTML then you need to read the XHTML™ 1.0 Specification (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/">http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/</a><!-- m -->). It is pretty short because it tells you to go read the HTML 4.01 Specification (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/">http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/</a><!-- m -->) and the XML 1.0 Specification (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210">http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210</a><!-- m -->). But do read the XHTML specification if you are going to use XHTML. It lists the pitfalls, the ways that XHTML is incompatable with HTML browsers. Or better yet, read the HTML 4.01 Specification (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/">http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/</a><!-- m -->) and then stop. You'll be happier and your pages will work on more browsers.yada yada dude... I happen to have read them too and my view is instead of making it out to be a mysterious evil hard thing you should look at it closely. Why is it hard? Is ASP or PHP or JavaScript hard? End of thread as far as I'm concerned dude. Sorry if I offended you but what's right for you ain't right for all... get used to it. Maybe I'm smarter than you then lol. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ......
as for what jack frost rant you're on at work today leave me out of it pleasssssseeeee I DON'T CARE... The thread was about the lady having some excess javascript in her code... please stick to topic and avoid blatantly attacking people for using different methodologies and having different opinions than you. Each is equal as far as I can see, neither is ultimately righter than the next.
Please take your soapbox with you... goodnight.
HTML 4 and XHTML are both standards right? So what's being broken? I really wonder about you one issue guys. The most dangerous men in the world have 1 issue y'know, that's fanaticism. Sorry I showed you the red flag of .......Take a look under the hood at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nortypig.com/">http://www.nortypig.com/</a><!-- m --> . I believe that is your work; and I tip my hat to you for using the Strict DTD. However, near the top we find...
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@import url(stylesheets/styles.css);
-->
</style>
Which is all perfectly valid XHTML™ 1.0. The problem is that it is possible to write perfectly valid XHTML that is problematic nonetheless. From the XHTML™ 1.0 Specification:
Use external style sheets if your style sheet uses < or & or ]]> or --. Use external scripts if your script uses < or & or ]]> or --. Note that XML parsers are permitted to silently remove the contents of comments. Therefore, the historical practice of "hiding" scripts and style sheets within "comments" to make the documents backward compatible is likely to not work as expected in XML-based user agents.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines">http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#guidelines</a><!-- m --> It would appear that you know a great deal less than you think that you know. Please stop spreading ignorance on these boards.geez your a goose. Look further and you'll see I'm validating as XHTML but delivering mime type text/html so all they're getting is HTML. Stop being an idiot and leave me to do some work fool...Originally posted by porco
geez your a goose. Look further and you'll see I'm validating as XHTML but delivering mime type text/html so all they're getting is HTML. Stop being an idiot and leave me to do some work fool... Nonetheless, it does demonstrate that there is a great deal more to XHTML. And there is absolutely no advantage in it.
And one wonders, Why are you writing in XHTML something that will not work in an XHTML browser but telling browsers to ignore the slashes and pretend that it is HTML? Wouldn't a sane person just use HTML?and? and I break the web how? It is 11:04pm in Tasmania and I need to finish some work then sleep. Please cease attacking me for your entertainment and do some work.....
goodnight 4 evaluv u tooI don't think I need to comment here.
Sorry CarolW, I'm afraid you'll have to start a new thread since it's been sidelined into another of these arguments over (x)html...