re: [gutvol-d] html header-stuff, doctype and content-type
lee said:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" />
thanks lee. but this has me claiming the file is a form of xhtml, and not just the straightforward-plain-and-ordinary .html that it is. (i believe it would run in a 1997 browser.) what would the lines look like that would support this type of just-the-basics .html file? of course, i don't need anything more than the [html] at the top to get it to actually _work_ in a browser -- any browser -- and work just fine. so this is just an exercise in getting the file _validated_, so that it can pass the "requirement" of getting it posted.
Note that if your file truly _is_ 100% ASCII you could use "utf-8" or "iso-8859-1", or even "windows-1252" in place of "us-ascii", because for values less than 128 all three of these encoding methods are identical.
right. but i would prefer to make the claim as minimal as possible -- to reflect the actuality of the file -- not as maximal as possible... -bowerbird p.s. as for "tidy", thanks for all your open-source work on it...
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
lee said:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; " />
thanks lee. but this has me claiming the file is a form of xhtml, and not just the straightforward-plain-and-ordinary .html that it is. (i believe it would run in a 1997 browser.) what would the lines look like that would support this type of just-the-basics .html file?
Well, if it validates to XHTML 1.0 transitional it will also run in a 1997 browser. XHTML doesn't make old browsers not work, it just cleans up the format so new and useful tools will also work with it. If, on the other hand, you are committed to only supporting older browsers you could try <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> You may have to change the case of the word HTML. HTML is case insensitive for tags, but XML is very case sensitive; I don't know if the validator you contemplate using requires case sensitivity or not.
participants (2)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Lee Passey