Jutta Wrage wrote: >> Is not valid HTML >> I am sure its valid xhtml, and since you want to smoothly change to xhtml, >> and follow all the recommendations, whats the problem? > > > Can you please point us to the source for that information? "I am sure" is > not enough. The XHTML definition is mostly covered by the HTML 4 rec. THis > means that differences are liste in xthml1 rec and forms are not listed > there as ther is not difference between both, if you do not include xml. >
Here is the source of information, that i previously mentioned : http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/ Here is why i am sure its valid xhtml: ( from the previously mentioned page ) > 4. Differences with HTML 4 > > This section is informative. > > Due to the fact that XHTML is an XML application, certain practices that were > perfectly legal in SGML-based HTML 4 [HTML4] must be changed. > > (...) > > 4.2. Element and attribute names must be in lower case > > XHTML documents must use lower case for all HTML element and attribute names. > This difference is necessary because XML is case-sensitive e.g. <li> and <LI> > are different tags. > > 4.3. For non-empty elements, end tags are required > > In SGML-based HTML 4 certain elements were permitted to omit the end tag; > with the elements that followed implying closure. XML does not allow end tags > to be omitted. All elements other than those declared in the DTD as EMPTY > must have an end tag. Elements that are declared in the DTD as EMPTY can have > an end tag or can use empty element shorthand (see Empty Elements). > > CORRECT: terminated elements > <p>here is a paragraph.</p><p>here is another paragraph.</p> > INCORRECT: unterminated elements > <p>here is a paragraph.<p>here is another paragraph. > > (...) > > 4.6. Empty Elements > > Empty elements must either have an end tag or the start tag must end with />. > For instance, <br/> or <hr></hr>. See HTML Compatibility Guidelines for > information on ways to ensure this is backward compatible with HTML 4 user > agents. > > CORRECT: terminated empty elements > <br/><hr/> > > INCORRECT: unterminated empty elements > <br><hr> > > (...) > > 4.10. The elements with 'id' and 'name' attributes > > HTML 4 defined the name attribute for the elements a, applet, form, frame, > iframe, img, and map. HTML 4 also introduced the id attribute. Both of these > attributes are designed to be used as fragment identifiers. > > In XML, fragment identifiers are of type ID, and there can only be a single > attribute of type ID per element. Therefore, in XHTML 1.0 the id attribute is > defined to be of type ID. In order to ensure that XHTML 1.0 documents are > well-structured XML documents, XHTML 1.0 documents MUST use the id attribute > when defining fragment identifiers on the elements listed above. See the HTML > Compatibility Guidelines for information on ensuring such anchors are > backward compatible when serving XHTML documents as media type text/html. > > Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is formally > deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML. Jutta also wrote : > The pages are deliverd as text/html and have HTML in page head. That means, > the _must_ be _valid_ HTML 4.01. > > And about xhtml validation using validator.w3.org, please read the note > there. You have to use an xml validator to validate xhtml. > > The debian pages have currently > > * Upper case tags on many pages > * missing end tags, where that is not allowed when moving xhtml > > They are nearly all valid and display fine in browsers. If there really is > something wrong in displaying we will change that if we can reproduce it and > there is a solution. Having all or nearly all pages out of more than 22,000 > is really a hard job, but we got it. And we won't like to change that. > > So please tell me any reason why we should use something, that make the > pages invalid? I have spend hundreds of hours to make them all valid last > year. And all the others helped, to get the breakthrough moving from > transitional to strict with CSS. > These empty tags <br /> ,<hr /> or <input /> are compatible with html4 as it is written in the previous source : > C. HTML Compatibility Guidelines > > (...) > > C.2. Empty Elements > > Include a space before the trailing / and > of empty elements, e.g. <br />, > <hr /> and <img src="karen.jpg" alt="Karen" />. Also, use the minimized tag > syntax for empty elements, e.g. <br />, as the alternative syntax <br></br> > allowed by XML gives uncertain results in many existing user agents. > > C.3. Element Minimization and Empty Element Content > Given an empty instance of an element whose content model is not EMPTY (for > example, an empty title or paragraph) do not use the minimized form (e.g. use > <p> </p> and not <p />). > > (...) > > C.7. The lang and xml:lang Attributes > Use both the lang and xml:lang attributes when specifying the language of an > element. The value of the xml:lang attribute takes precedence. that is why i am sure it is xhtml compatible; however the changes i talk about concern only the beginning of each document, that is repeated in every page ( automatically generated from one source ) Jutta wrote : > They are nearly all valid and display fine in browsers. If there really is > something wrong in displaying we will change that if we can reproduce it and > there is a solution. Having all or nearly all pages out of more than 22,000 > is really a hard job, but we got it. And we won't like to change that. Ok, no problem :-) Regards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a
