 | |
doc types
Macromedia Dreamweaver Macromedia Dreamweaver Discussions (macromedia.dreamweaver)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: doc types -
10-30-2005
, 02:47 PM
|
The page I'm still working on is here: http://www.petpiazza.com/testing/2006/oz2.asp Some of the links are null right now, so if you want examples of the URLs then check out the calendar, poll "view results"...etc... Thanks! Dan "Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk0h7m$g4p$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... Show me the page, please Dan. -- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage! http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes ================== "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk0dnc$bpk$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... Gotcha. Now, why in the HTML Validator it complained about my style sheet link being terminated? I took out the /> and it went through. Also, the way the site was set up (pre-bought package - but have made numerous fixes and changes), the addresses have ...well, not sure what they are called...but they have @ and i and n and = to continue the url. I know I can fix the @ by doing the & to validate, but what about the other characters? How do I fix these urls so that the page validates? "Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk0a5i$781$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... No. Strict HTML4 is not "well-formed HTML" in that it still have non-terminated tags, e.g., br>, <img>, <meta>, etc. In well-formed HTML, every tag is terminated, even if that means it must be done within the tag itself, e.g., br / img / meta / -- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage! http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes ================== "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk06ua$36i$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... Can't I use "well-formed HTML" and use the HTML Strict doctype as opposed to the XHTML though? well formed html is well formed html whether or not you use HTML doctype or XHTML doctype is it not? I only say that because you said that would be the only benefit of using the XHTML doctype.... "Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message news:djvtlu$kob$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... That would be one take on it, yes. If you are not using XML/XSLT, then the only benefit using XHTML carries is the rigor of learning and using 'well-formed HTML' - not an insubstantial benefit, but not a necessary one, either. -- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage! http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes ================== "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dju7eg$d81$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype right? "Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dju710$clq$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly identifying your code could lead to unexpected results when the page is displayed. The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by default, if you'd like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict docytype and getting your code to validate against the W3C validator is a good indication that you're up on web standards and have a well-formed page. "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we use? Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there so many choices? Thanks! |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
I see - they used the Macromedia HALO template for that. Try this. Scroll your page so that the global menu links are right at the top of the viewport margin. Now mouse over the links. See your subglobal menus? I didn't think so.... But I'm not sure I understand your question - can you elaborate? -- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage! http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes ================== "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk0jcc$is5$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... The page I'm still working on is here: http://www.petpiazza.com/testing/2006/oz2.asp Some of the links are null right now, so if you want examples of the URLs then check out the calendar, poll "view results"...etc... Thanks! Dan "Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk0h7m$g4p$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... Show me the page, please Dan. -- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage! http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes ================== "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk0dnc$bpk$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... Gotcha. Now, why in the HTML Validator it complained about my style sheet link being terminated? I took out the /> and it went through. Also, the way the site was set up (pre-bought package - but have made numerous fixes and changes), the addresses have ...well, not sure what they are called...but they have @ and i and n and = to continue the url. I know I can fix the @ by doing the & to validate, but what about the other characters? How do I fix these urls so that the page validates? "Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk0a5i$781$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... No. Strict HTML4 is not "well-formed HTML" in that it still have non-terminated tags, e.g., br>, <img>, <meta>, etc. In well-formed HTML, every tag is terminated, even if that means it must be done within the tag itself, e.g., br / img / meta / -- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage! http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes ================== "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dk06ua$36i$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... Can't I use "well-formed HTML" and use the HTML Strict doctype as opposed to the XHTML though? well formed html is well formed html whether or not you use HTML doctype or XHTML doctype is it not? I only say that because you said that would be the only benefit of using the XHTML doctype.... "Murray *TMM*" <forums (AT) HAHAgreat-web-sights (DOT) com> wrote in message news:djvtlu$kob$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... That would be one take on it, yes. If you are not using XML/XSLT, then the only benefit using XHTML carries is the rigor of learning and using 'well-formed HTML' - not an insubstantial benefit, but not a necessary one, either. -- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage! http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes ================== "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dju7eg$d81$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... but what's the deal with the xhtml strict/loose? Just incorprates XML coding? So, if I'm not using XML, I shouldn't use it as a doctype right? "Lionstone" <HIDElionstone (AT) HIDEhushmail (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dju710$clq$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... It identifies what kind of code you'll be writing. Improperly identifying your code could lead to unexpected results when the page is displayed. The last version of DW used HTML 4.01 Transitional by default, if you'd like to stick with that. Trying out a Strict docytype and getting your code to validate against the W3C validator is a good indication that you're up on web standards and have a well-formed page. "Dan Galfano" <daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote in message news:dju68g$bn2$1 (AT) forums (DOT) macromedia.com... What are the differences between the doctypes? Which one should we use? Does it depend on what type of code you are using? Why are there so many choices? Thanks! |
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
I fixed the & hang up by changing it to the & but I don't know how to fix the others to let the page be validated. |
Changing the & to & should be all you need.
Gary
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:55:49 -0500, "Dan Galfano" daniel (AT) galfanodesign (DOT) com> wrote: I fixed the & hang up by changing it to the & but I don't know how to fix the others to let the page be validated. Changing the & to & should be all you need. Gary |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
really? I only tried a few, but I'll get the rest of them switched over. Hopefully that will be it. Thanks! |
You're welcome. The problem you ran into was that after encountering the
"&" in the link, the validator tried to look at the following characters
to find a character entity. That's where the "n" was coming from because
it couldn't make an entity out of nChannel. Thus, it complained about
that. Once you give it a proper character entity, &, it should not
complain about the rest.
Gary
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.