Answers
Oct 09, 2006 - 06:21 PM
Hi there!
Good question. The reason why it may or may not work depending on the browser or what follows in the HTML will depend on the browser and their interpretation/implementation of the standards, commonly referred to as either "strict" or "quirks". There is a good site - http://www.quirksmode.org that can explain some of the nuances of the two different modes in the various popular browsers.
I have a return question...why use an "empty"
Good question. The reason why it may or may not work depending on the browser or what follows in the HTML will depend on the browser and their interpretation/implementation of the standards, commonly referred to as either "strict" or "quirks". There is a good site - http://www.quirksmode.org that can explain some of the nuances of the two different modes in the various popular browsers.
I have a return question...why use an "empty"
tag? This tag is supposed to be used as a container for other elements/items on the page. It looks from your code that you're using the
as a "block" to create space. You could achieve this with a 1px transparent .gif file contained in the
and that way it won't be affected by additional tags following the "empty"
.
I doubt you'll get reliable results trying to use the XHTML notation style in all the browsers, so you're probably going to end up changing back to a more "standard" style.
I hope this helps,
Ric
I doubt you'll get reliable results trying to use the XHTML notation style in all the browsers, so you're probably going to end up changing back to a more "standard" style.
I hope this helps,
Ric
Oct 09, 2006 - 06:41 PM
Yeah, good return question :-)
Basically, my question was - of course - just out of curiosity, not because it was a big problem for me.
However, it becomes something of a problem at times when your code is not working and you have to figure out why. Since I felt, I was using the right notation, it bothered me that browsers didn't agree.
Basically, my question was - of course - just out of curiosity, not because it was a big problem for me.
However, it becomes something of a problem at times when your code is not working and you have to figure out why. Since I felt, I was using the right notation, it bothered me that browsers didn't agree.
Oct 09, 2006 - 06:47 PM
But if I should answer your question with a more practical approach, I dare say that it is very handy to have empty div's - for instance to create blocks. Or to put something in them later (DHTML).
Another thing: Take the tag in the <head> section: <br><script type="text/javascript" src="javascript.js"/> <br> <br>This would be the obvious way to do it - but it doesn't work either. <br> <br>My problem is that I was used to doing so, when I used XSL. It worked fine.
Another thing: Take the tag in the <head> section: <br><script type="text/javascript" src="javascript.js"/> <br> <br>This would be the obvious way to do it - but it doesn't work either. <br> <br>My problem is that I was used to doing so, when I used XSL. It worked fine.
Oct 09, 2006 - 07:16 PM
I've noticed that, too...
It seems that the tag will accept the "short" XHTML convention, but won't. There must be something with the tag specification/standards, that won't allow something that should be a container to be short-handed. Of course, the obvious counter to that argument would be the <p /> tag. Oh, well...sometimes I really wonder what on earth is really going on with the "standards" these days.
It seems that the tag will accept the "short" XHTML convention, but won't. There must be something with the tag specification/standards, that won't allow something that should be a container to be short-handed. Of course, the obvious counter to that argument would be the <p /> tag. Oh, well...sometimes I really wonder what on earth is really going on with the "standards" these days.
Oct 09, 2006 - 08:45 PM
Funny thing is, my
element validates to valid XHTML by http://validator.w3.org if I specify this doctype:
Whereas it is NOT valid HTML.
But the browsers don't care which doctype I specify.
Whereas it is NOT valid HTML.
But the browsers don't care which doctype I specify.
Jun 19, 2007 - 12:01 AM
In the SGML declaration of HTML, minimisation (SHORTTAG) is turned on (set to YES), whereas in the SGML declaration of XHTML it is turned off (set to NO). As a result, in HTML,
translates to >. If you have
, this translates to > where the orphan closed chevron is contained directly by the body-tag. As the HTML specification also forbids the body-tag from directly containing data, this will not validate.
For further details, have a read of: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/e...
Hope this was helpful,
Mark
For further details, have a read of: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/e...
Hope this was helpful,
Mark
Jun 19, 2007 - 12:17 AM
In the SGML declaration of HTML, minimisation (SHORTTAG) is turned on (set to YES), whereas in the SGML declaration of XHTML it is turned off (set to NO). As a result, in HTML,
translates to >. If you have
, this translates to > where the orphan closed chevron is contained directly by the body-tag. As the HTML specification also forbids the body-tag from directly containing data, this will not validate.
For further details, have a read of: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/e...
For further details, have a read of: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/e...
Dec 27, 2010 - 06:02 PM
Well, I’m sorry I can't understand so complicated VB words, but if you have internet connection problems, you can try the software tuneup360, which is really helpful~~
Add New Comment