I have following code in the page head:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/html401-rdfa-1.dtd">
<html xml:lang="<?php echo $this->language; ?>" lang="<?php echo $this->language; ?>" dir="<?php echo $this->direction; ?>">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml; charset=UTF-8">
If I try to validate this page with Validator.w3.org and do it with automatic doctype detecting, I get 174 errors and the doctype is shown as -//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.0//EN. Here is the validation result.
Then if setting the doctype manually to HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.1 and revalidate the page, the doctype is shown as HTML 4.01 Transitional, there are 2 errors and 2 warnings: Unable to Determine Parse Mode and DOCTYPE Override in effect! The validator seems not to understand my doctype and writes:
The detected DOCTYPE Declaration >!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.0//EN" "hxxp://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/html401-rdfa-1.dtd"< has been suppressed and the DOCTYPE for "HTML 4.01 + RDFa 1.1" inserted instead...
If setting the validator up to show the source code, so i see, that the validator has a little bit another code, as the the page has. The validator changes the first line of the code to
<!DOCTYPE ><!-- <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01+RDFa 1.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/html401-rdfa-1.dtd"> -->
and comments my right doctype out...`
Would somebody point me to the right doctype (or right syntax/workaround)?
Is there any reason why you are not using a more mainstream RDFa doctype such as:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+RDFa 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-rdfa-2.dtd">
or even the more simple HTML5 doctype:
<!DOCTYPE html>
Related
I added Microdata to the product pages of my site. That leads to some errors. One of these errors is the following:
there is no attribute "itemprop"
The error is related to this source code line:
<div itemprop="offers" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer">
My Doctype is as follows:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
How would it be possible to make the page W3C compliant when keeping the same Doctype?
Microdata can only be used in (X)HTML5.
If you want to use the Schema.org vocabulary in XHTML 1.1, you could use RDFa, but this would require changing the DOCTYPE to
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+RDFa 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-rdfa-2.dtd">
(See my answer about differences between Microdata and RDFa.)
Do HTML 5 tags appearing in HTML 4 Transitional cause a performance issue? Will it validate?
Current doctype declaration:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
HTML 5 tags used:
<section> <header> <nav>
Do HTML 5 tags appearing in HTML 4 Transitional cause a performance issue?
No more so then if they appear in HTML 5.
Will it validate?
No, of course not. They weren't added until HTML 5.
I seem to have an obscure issue with a razor template forcing browsers into quirks mode. It is a simple razor template in umbraco 5. The following code makes chrome, firefox, IE all go into quirks mode:
#inherits RenderViewPage
#using System.Web.Mvc.Html;
#using Umbraco.Cms.Web;
#{
Layout = "";
}
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<title>Page title</title>
</head>
<body>
</body>
</html>
If I move the razor syntax completely or move it down so it is not before the doctype it goes into standards compliance mode. I've tried adding various X-UA-Compatible meta tags to no effect.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<title>Page title</title>
</head>
<body>
#inherits RenderViewPage
#using System.Web.Mvc.Html;
#using Umbraco.Cms.Web;
#{
Layout = "";
}
</body>
</html>
Anyone any ideas what could be the cause? It's as though the browsers think it is rendering something before the doctype but there is nothing I can see.
Thanks
You don't need a semi-colon on your #using statements, perhaps this is what the browser is seeing?
So e.g.
#using Umbraco.Cms.Web;
can just be
#using Umbraco.Cms.Web
Same here
It looks like that it places extra chars (whitespace) right before opening tag < of doctype. I think that it is an editor bug.
Try to remove the opening "<" and insert it back and save after that. also doctype should be 1st line of the file.
The # statements are translated to whitespace. The doctype is expected to be the first line of the document. In this case, the first line is blank, so the doctype is defined as an empty line, which triggers quirksmode.
Given a view with layout, how can I load static files (CSS and JS, essentially) into the <head> from the view file?
layout.html
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="{{=T.accepted_language or 'en'}}">
<head>
<title>{{=response.title or request.application}}</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<!-- include requires CSS files
{{response.files.append(URL(request.application,'static','base.css'))}}
{{response.files.append(URL(request.application,'static','ez-plug-min.css'))}}
-->
{{include 'web2py_ajax.html'}}
</head>
<body>
{{include}}
</body>
</html>
myview.html
{{extend 'layout.html'}}
{{response.files.append(URL(r=request,c='static',f='myview.css'))}}
<h1>Some header</h1>
<div>
some content
</div>
In the above example, the "myview.css" file is either ignored by web2py or stripped out by the browser.
So what is the best way to load page-specific files like this CSS file? I'd rather not stuff all my static files into my layout.
In myview.html reverse the first two lines
{{response.files.append(URL(r=request,c='static',f='myview.css'))}}
{{extend 'layout.html'}}
Mind that 1.78.1 and 1.78.2 had a bug did not allow this to work. It was fixed in 1.78.3 on the same day. The response.file.append(...) can also be moved in the controller action that needs it. You are not supposed to put logic before extend but you define variables to be passed to the extended view.
The project I work on takes random HTML files, converts them to XHTML as best as it can, and wraps them with some XML metdata. The DOCTYPE is stripped out as the resulting XML file is not an XHTML document. However when retrieving the wrapped XHTML from the XML file the DOCTYPE should be reinserted.
Because these are random HTML files they could contain any content, but I would prefer to not have to store or determine the original DTD. I figured that I should the Frameset DTD as it was just a superset of the Transitional DTD and would be valid for all content. However when using the W3C XHTML Validator with the same document, using the Transitional DTD passes but using the Frameset DTD fails.
I've stripped down the document to the minimum with which I can reproduce the problem. Here is the Frameset version:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Frameset//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-frameset.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<title>Make The Move</title>
</head>
<body style="background: none;">
<h3 id="why">Why should I move to Linux?</h3>
</body>
</html>
And here is the Transitional version:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<title>Make The Move</title>
</head>
<body style="background: none;">
<h3 id="why">Why should I move to Linux?</h3>
</body>
</html>
Please explain why this is happening, and how I should proceed.
Frameset DTD is not a 'superset' of transitional. It is a special DTD only used for laying out frames, not content (except inside <noframes> tag). It allows only <head> and <frameset> as the children of <html> tag.
Here is the specification.
Unless you know your page could have frames, stick to transitional or strict DTDs.
As Chetan pointed out, the Frameset DTD should only be used in case you need frames, and even then, I would recomend on using Transitional instead. If you don't rely on frames, Strict is the way to go.