Are your sites 100% standards compliant (CSS & XHTML)?
Moderator: General Moderators
Getting things to validate in both mozzilla based and ie browsers in a pain.
Some of the problem appears to be the way the browser interpets the doc type decleration.
I haven't found a good source for it online but the 'designing with web standards' by jeffery zeldman had a fairly good explenation.
It has to deal with the way the delcearion is formed and wither it puts the browser in to compliants mode or a quirks mode.
I can type out the explaination if people want but for copyright purposes i'll wont for now.
I voted for mostly as it depends on what level the client wants the site to validate too.
Level 1 or A complaince is fairly easy, level 2 or AA can take a bit of thinking and level 3 or AAA requires some effort if not making a standard html based site.
Some of the problem appears to be the way the browser interpets the doc type decleration.
I haven't found a good source for it online but the 'designing with web standards' by jeffery zeldman had a fairly good explenation.
It has to deal with the way the delcearion is formed and wither it puts the browser in to compliants mode or a quirks mode.
I can type out the explaination if people want but for copyright purposes i'll wont for now.
I voted for mostly as it depends on what level the client wants the site to validate too.
Level 1 or A complaince is fairly easy, level 2 or AA can take a bit of thinking and level 3 or AAA requires some effort if not making a standard html based site.
Since when is html4 transitional not a standard? My impression is that it's also a standard, just a different one (implying you'll have to change things in your markup to validate again, like removing slashes in self closed elements). So in your case you can still have a 100% valid page, only it's 4 transitional.Great, so now the site isn't standards compliant anymore, but works in the four major browsers
I think if you want to solve the footer at the bottom problem without changing the doctype this comes close: http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/footerStickAlt/If you manage to find a way to implement the design of that site in a standards compliant way and it works in IE, FF, Opera and Konqueror
footerStickAlt has been tested and passed in Internet Explorer 5.01 for Windows, Internet Explorer 5.5 for Windows, Opera 7.51 for Windows, Opera 8.0 for Windows, Internet Explorer 6 for Windows, Firefox 1.04 for Windows, Firefox 1.02 for OSX & Safari 1.3 for OSX.
I didn't know there are different validators for Mozilla and IE browsers?phpScott wrote:Getting things to validate in both mozzilla based and ie browsers in a pain.
I think validating for accessibility is not the question here. Is it? You mean validating for section 508?phpScott wrote:Level 1 or A complaince is fairly easy, level 2 or AA can take a bit of thinking and level 3 or AAA requires some effort if not making a standard html based site
Run it through the W3 validators and you'll see.matthijs wrote:Since when is html4 transitional not a standard? My impression is that it's also a standard, just a different one (implying you'll have to change things in your markup to validate again, like removing slashes in self closed elements). So in your case you can still have a 100% valid page, only it's 4 transitional.Great, so now the site isn't standards compliant anymore, but works in the four major browsers
matthijs wrote:I think if you want to solve the footer at the bottom problem without changing the doctype this comes close: http://www.themaninblue.com/experiment/footerStickAlt/
That's not what I'm doing on the page I linked to in my previous post. Mine sticks to the bottom - pretty much no matter what - and it stays there and is scrollable, e.g. http://www.advanceenergy.co.uk/design/strategy.htmlthemaninblue wrote:footerStick, that allows for the footer of a Web page to appear either at the bottom of the browser window or the bottom of the Web page content – whichever is visually lowest.
Which validators do you use? If I check in http://validator.w3.org/check the only thing I have to do to be able to test for validation is adding a charset. Just did that and it passed without errors.

But the only point I'm trying to make is that validation is not difficult and saves time. Which doctype you choose is a different question I think. And of course there will be some situations were it will be difficult to get 100% validation. Like when you include content (ads for examle) which you have no control over.
Ok, I didn't see that. Guess you have spent enough time trying to fix it so I won't waste mine as wellThat's not what I'm doing on the page I linked to in my previous post. Mine sticks to the bottom
But the only point I'm trying to make is that validation is not difficult and saves time. Which doctype you choose is a different question I think. And of course there will be some situations were it will be difficult to get 100% validation. Like when you include content (ads for examle) which you have no control over.
Section 508 is the US gov standards for accessibility.
I know the poll was about XHTML and CSS but I take standards to include accessibility, worked on a couple of local government projects so it has been beaten into my thinking now.
As for transitional as a valid doctype check out
Recommended DTDs to use in your Web document.
example
validates just nicely thank you.
I know the poll was about XHTML and CSS but I take standards to include accessibility, worked on a couple of local government projects so it has been beaten into my thinking now.
As for transitional as a valid doctype check out
Recommended DTDs to use in your Web document.
example
Code: Select all
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled</title>
</head>
<body>
some text
</body>
</html>Which standards? You've defined the page to be HTML-4.01 Transitional, and it *is* compliant to that standard.patrikG wrote:Great, so now the site isn't standards compliant anymore, but works in the four major browsers.
Its important to seperate being HTML compliant from a specific LEVEL of compliance. Being Transitional-compliant is a great accomplishment by itself. Ideally, you want to get to Strict, instead, but thats a different issue.
That site *is* HTML compliant.
I guess that shows my ignorance - I don't really consider HTML-4 transitional as "standards compliant", strict is the only standards compliance I bear in mind using HTML tidy (and the FF plugin). When I submitted the site to W3 validity checks it was moaning about the doctype, about the CSS...Roja wrote:That site *is* HTML compliant.
Looks like I, like HTML Tidy, was a bit too strict
-
Charles256
- DevNet Resident
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm
- RobertGonzalez
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 14293
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
- Location: Fremont, CA, USA
The alignment (centering) can be fixed by setting your right and left margins to 'auto' I think on either the table property or the div property. As far as fixing the position, we are all hosed. Crappy IE chokes on that one. Kind of upsetting, really. I am designing a site where the header is fixed. The whole thing renders perfectly in everything except IE. Oh wel, they choose to use IE, they get what they get. 
EDIT: This was supposed to follow patrikG's comment about the footer div in his friend's site not aligning properly in IE. Somehow I managed to let this sit in the hopper for abit before posting and it looks horribly out of place. Sorry all.
EDIT: This was supposed to follow patrikG's comment about the footer div in his friend's site not aligning properly in IE. Somehow I managed to let this sit in the hopper for abit before posting and it looks horribly out of place. Sorry all.
Last edited by RobertGonzalez on Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
These days I can create an XHTML 1.0 Strict document quite handily. I have a system of sorts (compiled habits!) which gets me there quickly. On the downside I work primarily from Linux, and test to IE on Windows far later along the design curve. Result is validated perfection on Firefox (barring those inevtiable few typos) and validated crap on IE...
. Sometimes rarely even on Firefox simply because of some weird font mis-match.
I find myself spending a significant amount of time fixing IE bugs to cater for the 85% of users still using IE oblivious to its faults. I'm almost afraid to look at IE7 and lose my faith in an improved IE altogether - waiting for the FINAL before going a little crazy if it's not compliant...
I really pity people who are assigned the job of migrating legacy apps to a standard. Been down that road a few times and it is not even remotely enjoyable. Probably the most repetitive task imaginable outside maintaining a poorly designed procedural app...bleh...
I find myself spending a significant amount of time fixing IE bugs to cater for the 85% of users still using IE oblivious to its faults. I'm almost afraid to look at IE7 and lose my faith in an improved IE altogether - waiting for the FINAL before going a little crazy if it's not compliant...
I really pity people who are assigned the job of migrating legacy apps to a standard. Been down that road a few times and it is not even remotely enjoyable. Probably the most repetitive task imaginable outside maintaining a poorly designed procedural app...bleh...
How recognizable. But on the other side, reducing the pageweight of some table-filled html mess with 90% and getting all styles in one single css file for a site of 100+ pages does give some satisfaction in the end.I really pity people who are assigned the job of migrating legacy apps to a standard. Been down that road a few times and it is not even remotely enjoyable.
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland