Re: Marquee For Firefox

In article <slrnflu39m.lj6.spamspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ben C <spamspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2007-12-11, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
(1) I raised the question of validation. Comments on this from:

You - zero

This poster - zero

JK - something I am still baffled by! I said things about it
being hard or impossible to validate, (it being an MS extension).
He then decides, as is his way, to regard this as clueless. Of
course, it can be validated says he or something like this? Yeah?
What about you explaining this bit for the benefit of everyone in
this PhD subject of validation?

I'm still waiting for my validation PhD to arrive in the post, but I
think the idea is you just make your own DTD which includes marquee, so
then it validates.


Well, that is what I gathered actually, I got a bit worried I am
missing some obvious thing. It seemed to me there was some
misunderstanding, I certainly never think it is important at all
costs to validate and why would one bother to go the trouble for
a marquee or two [1]?

I can't see the point though. The reason why most people validate HTML
is that browsers are supposed to behave more predictably on valid HTML.

Something that isn't HTML but is valid SGML (is that what HTML + marquee
with a custom doctype allowing it technically is?) is completely wasted
on a web browser, which doesn't look at the DTD qua a DTD at all. The
most it does with the doctype is a crude string-match to turn on quirks
mode or not.

Where were you when you might have helped? Is it not practically and
substantially true that if you slip in a marquee in the useful dtds of
today that your documents will not validate?

I'm pretty sure that's true. But also that all browsers will grok
marquee in some fashion anyway (even if just to ignore it) since they
weren't born yesterday.

However, on my track tests, a fair few seem to handle it quite
well.

After all this, I am considering a PhD in "marquee website
technology".

But now I must get back to ironing out a 1 mm discrepancy in an
Illustrator file detined for a commercial print house (funny how
1 mm actually can count in such things but be a ridiculous
concern in website building!)

---------
[1] I would not, considering I only race cars with them, and as
everyone knows, there is nothing very respectable about
production car race gatherings, they can be quite rough, it would
be silly and not altogether honest to give it some sort of high
fallutin' respectable seal of approval.

--
dorayme
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Marquee For Firefox
    ... The reason why most people validate HTML ... Something that isn't HTML but is valid SGML (is that what HTML + marquee ... which doesn't look at the DTD qua a DTD at all. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: standalone validating XML parser for Solaris?
    ... the unix command line to validate large XML files against an XML DTD. ... Older versions only parse but dont validate. ... More recent versions can validate against DTD or Schema. ...
    (comp.text.xml)
  • Re: Marquee For Firefox
    ... browser tester as explained in my post (which you snipped. ... benefit from being under, say, 4.01 Strict, the silly marquee an ... except for toy car racing ). ... using, marquee will not validate. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: validate XML with DTD and Xerces: Non-whitespace characters
    ... > as mentioned above I'd like to validate a simple XML-document with a ... If you want standalone validation with a DTD, ... The name you declare in the Document Type Declaration must be the ...
    (comp.text.xml)
  • Re: XHTML for teaching
    ... This is purely down to the author, it doesn't need a stricter ... They are valid under HTML. ... it's not difficult to validate using a custom HTML ... >> DTD that is as strict as the XHTML DTD. ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)