|
|
Re: BASE and IMG and [X]HTML: msg#00084org.w3c.validator
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 kynn@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Charlie Reiman asked: > > We've been having a discussion on the zope mailing list regarding the > > validator's behavior with <base ... />. In particular, an HTML 4.01 > > transitional document is not allowed to use <base ... />. Instead, it is > > expected to use <base ...>. Yes, that's SGML syntax for an empty element. > > Well, okay. I don't like it but I accept the reasoning. But why does it not > > complain about <img ... />? Isn't this the same situation? Yes, but not for the reason you think. The / closes the tag in both cases, so the ">" is simply a character. In HTML 4.01 Legacy loose character data is allowed in the <body> (where <img...> appears) but not in <head ...> (so it is illegal with <base...>). This means you will get confusing error messages when you validate, and is one of many reasons to prefer strict over legacy HTML. > / > Wait, what the heck is this? SHORTTAG. No problem there. > <img src="blah.jpg" alt="Blah!">/> Nope. YM <img src="blah.jpg" alt="Blah!">> Look at the parse tree. Or use Page Valet, which presents the same results as the W3 validator but in a clearer manner. -- Nick Kew |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: BASE and IMG and [X]HTML: 00084, kynn |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: BASE and IMG and [X]HTML: 00084, kynn |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: BASE and IMG and [X]HTMLi: 00084, kynn |
| Next by Thread: | Re: BASE and IMG and [X]HTML: 00084, kynn |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |