TBODY tag

On 11/27/2007 4:03 AM, rf wrote:

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:7d76434e-6774-440a-b6e2-8a05a8b67f6e (AT) f3g2000hsg (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On 27 Nov, 01:43, "Joy M" <ab... (AT) ns (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote:

snippage

If you
use <thead>, it might be thought clearer (for human readability) to
add the <tbody> too.

If the thead element is used then the tbody opening tag is required.
According to the specs.

I just looked that up, and you are correct. However, the W3C validator
never catches the fact that my tables have <THEAD> without any <TBODY>.
That might be because my DOCTYPE is generally HTML 4.01 Transitional.
In anticipation that I might someday change to HTML 4.01 Strict, I will
now add <TBODY> to my tables as my pages are updated.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Natural foods can be harmful: Look at all the
people who die of natural causes.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:23:41 -0800, "David E. Ross" <nobody (AT) nowhere (DOT) not>
wrote:

I just looked that up, and you are correct. However, the W3C validator
never catches the fact that my tables have <THEAD> without any <TBODY>.

It's not expressed as such in the DTD. So if the validator is going
purely by the DTD, it won't catch it.

Jukka?

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:43:00 -0500 from David Stone
<no.email (AT) domain (DOT) invalid>:

Regarding <thead> not being inferred automatically: even if you use
th>...</th> markup?

<th> can be used for row heads as well as column heads, so it's
perfectly valid outside of <thead>...</thead>.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you

In article <MPG.21b802fe6596e70298b23b (AT) news (DOT) individual.net>,
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown (AT) fastmail (DOT) fm> wrote:

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:43:00 -0500 from David Stone
no.email (AT) domain (DOT) invalid>:
Regarding <thead> not being inferred automatically: even if you use
th>...</th> markup?

th> can be used for row heads as well as column heads, so it's
perfectly valid outside of <thead>...</thead>.

Ah, now it makes sense!

Scripsit Andy Dingley:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:23:41 -0800, "David E. Ross"
nobody (AT) nowhere (DOT) not> wrote:

I just looked that up, and you are correct. However, the W3C
validator never catches the fact that my tables have <THEAD> without
any <TBODY>.

It's not expressed as such in the DTD. So if the validator is going
purely by the DTD, it won't catch it.

Jukka?

A validator by definition goes by the DTD, though it might have roles
other than the validator role and might issue warnings based on other
considerations.

The HTML 4.01 DTD says:

<!ELEMENT TABLE - -
(CAPTION?, (COL*|COLGROUP*), THEAD?, TFOOT?, TBODY+)>

This means that at least one TBODY element must always be present in a
TABLE element, but it follows from the definition of TBODY that it need
not have start and end tags, so the _tag_ <TBODY> may be omitted.

Thus e.g.

<table>
<thead><tr><td></thead>
<tr><td>
</table>

passes validation, but if you omit the <tr><td> (which constitutes a
TBODY element here), it does not pass.

In other words, the validator catches a missing TBODY element but not a
missing <TBODY> tag.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

The HTML 4.01 DTD says:

!ELEMENT TABLE - -
(CAPTION?, (COL*|COLGROUP*), THEAD?, TFOOT?, TBODY+)

This means that at least one TBODY element must always be present in a
TABLE element, but it follows from the definition of TBODY that it need
not have start and end tags, so the _tag_ <TBODY> may be omitted.

Actually, if HTML was a structure-controlled conforming SGML application,
it couldn't forbid implicit TBODY start tags after THEAD elements because
conforming ISO/IEC-8879 structure-controlled applications operate only on
the ESIS.
Similarly, a structure-controlled conforming SGML application cannot
impose constraints on the format of comments outside of the constraints
imposed by ISO/IEC 8879.

But HTML is not really a SGML application.

--
If you've a question that doesn't belong to Usenet, contact me at
<tabkanDELETETHISnaz at yahoDELETETHATo.fr>

Scripsit André Gillibert:

Actually, if HTML was a structure-controlled conforming SGML
application,

I was unable to find the term "structure-controlled" in my copy of the
SGML Handbook. Where can I find it and the relevant conformance clause?

it couldn't forbid implicit TBODY start tags after THEAD
elements because conforming ISO/IEC-8879 structure-controlled
applications operate only on the ESIS.

Neither can I find "ESIS", so it is not an SGML concept, hence it cannot
be relevant to SGML conformance.

Besides, there is no "ISO/IEC-8879". The SGML standard is ISO 8879, with
no IEC involvement. I have no idea why the phrase "ISO/IEC 8879" appears
even in some ISO documents.

Similarly, a structure-controlled conforming SGML application cannot
impose constraints on the format of comments outside of the
constraints imposed by ISO/IEC 8879.

I have no idea how the format of comments is relevant to the discussion.

But HTML is not really a SGML application.

Well, it is, as defined in HTML 2.0 at least, but it was never
_implemented_. After all, "SGML application" is a technical concept that
does not require existence in the sense that implementations exist.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html message <M184j.259654$C73.109567@
reader1.news.saunalahti.fi>, Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:27:49, Jukka K. Korpela
<jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> posted:

Besides, there is no "ISO/IEC-8879". The SGML standard is ISO 8879,
with no IEC involvement. I have no idea why the phrase "ISO/IEC 8879"
appears even in some ISO documents.

Then you could try reading the Foreword to ISO/IEC 16262, freely
available in PDF /via/
<http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/liveli...ttf_Home/Publi
clyAvailableStandards.htm>.


You could also do View Source on that *.htm page and inform them
of the errors of their ways, with particular reference to 12px.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6
news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

Scripsit Dr J R Stockton:

Besides, there is no "ISO/IEC-8879". The SGML standard is ISO 8879,
with no IEC involvement. I have no idea why the phrase "ISO/IEC 8879"
appears even in some ISO documents.

Then you could try reading the Foreword to ISO/IEC 16262,

Why should I "try" it? Does it have any relevance to the question?

I actually checked it, since you sounded so convincing. It basically
presents the prelude about ISO and IEC I've seen a few times. It has
absolutely nothing to do with the facts that I stated, or with the
question why ISO 8879 is sometimes cited mistakenly, except in the
general sense that some standards are ISO/IEC standards, which was
definitely nothing new to me, or to anyone who has ever read an
introduction to the elements of the basics of international
standardization.

You could also do View Source on that *.htm page and inform
them of the errors of their ways, with particular reference to
12px.

Why would I do that? If you thought it was important enough, _you_ could
have told them that.

Unless you have a very good explanation, I will assume that you are just
trying to waste everyone's time and distract people.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/