> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:12:57 +1300 > From: "Barry Carlson"<barrycarls@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [FreeHelp] The basic HTML Document > To: "Joe - Wakefield"<joe.wakefield.uk@gmail.com> > Cc: FREEPAGES-HELP@rootsweb.com > Message-ID:<93D46C30E6E2473CA74A0C73513DBCCE@VirtualXP27465> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > Joe, > > The Rootsweb banners are HTML4 XHTML and the cellpadding, cellspacing and > border declarations in the Footer are valid. When using an HTML5 Validator, > those same declarations report as invalid, but they are valid HTML, just > deprecated in HTML5. > > All browsers treat deprecated code as valid and render it in their legacy > mode. More importantly, the hosted content of the Rootsweb page is valid and > the banners can be considered as valid though deemed deprecated due to the > hosted page using the<!DOCTYPE html>. At least the browser will run in > Standards Mode rather than adopting Quirks Mode when confronted by a hosted > page with no Doctype, or even worse, missing html or body tags! > > I think the aim of the exercise is to write good HTML, and there will always > be a validation conflict when HTML3, HTML4 or HTML5 standards and variants > become mixed. > > Barry > Kind folks, I found this discussion quite interesting. In addition to the <!DOCTYPE html> "boilerplate" text, I have some other stuff prior to the <head> section that I don't fully understand. I'm pretty sure it came from an example a friend of mine gave me, or that I found somewhere. My three pre-head lines look like this: <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> I was just wondering if anyone sees anything harmful or inappropriate there? I also notice that instead of <meta charset="utf-8"> in the head section, I have: <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" /> I guess I have the same set of questions regarding the appropriateness of that. -- Thanks, Charlie Carothers In God We Trust!!!