kaled
msg:3071171 | 11:07 am on Sep 4, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Theoretically, you could write a script to run on your server that could be used with ajax to pull the site into a div. The script would have to adjust all the links so it would not be easy. Alternatively, the links could be modified using javascript and the inclusion performed with a server-side include. I believe it is possible to include pages from other servers but I've never tried it. This would be a lot of work, and might be very slow - probably not a good idea. Kaled.
|
Rambo Tribble
msg:3074303 | 2:39 am on Sep 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are usually considered as having the best web developers in the world developing their sites. They are noted for embracing the latest technologies, such as AJAX and were early adopters of CSS. Yet, each delivers their pages as HTML, not XHTML. Do you think that says something?
|
dragonthoughts
msg:3074830 | 1:02 pm on Sep 7, 2006 (gmt 0) |
They may deliver content as HTML because Internet Explorer will only display XHTML served as HTML. The ubiquitious browser may be the reason for restricting pages to HTML :-(
|
eSite
msg:3076866 | 12:13 am on Sep 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Sigh, IE is really slowing down the Web.
|
encyclo
msg:3076903 | 1:10 am on Sep 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
You get no advantage in attempting to validate against a strict DTD (XHTML or HTML) when dealing with this kind of situation - especially as the iframe solution is valid in both XHTML 1.0 Transitional and HTML 4.01 Transitional. You could try using object instead, but what's the point? You would reduce the functionality of your site for no tangible benefit. Just switch to a transitional DTD, use an inline frame for the astore, and your site will remain valid.
|
eSite
msg:3076938 | 1:52 am on Sep 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I want to use the last format, if XHTML 1.1 was supported by IE 6 I would use it too.
|
tedster
msg:3077015 | 4:03 am on Sep 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I'm not sure how the modules offered by xhtml 1.1 [w3.org] would help the situation you describe. Instead of paying attention to the release date, I'd say just use the tool created for the the job you want to do. How about XHTML 1.0 Frameset [w3.org]? W3C List of Valid DTDs [w3.org]
|
eSite
msg:3077058 | 6:01 am on Sep 9, 2006 (gmt 0) |
lol man, if I go with lower than Strict I'll be stuck there forever because Strict and above ban the frames. Using the last standard is a requirement, so looks like I'll have to just link to the store at amazon.com
|
jessejump
msg:3078193 | 6:28 pm on Sep 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
>>>..Using the last standard is a requirement Who is requiring it?
|
SuzyUK
msg:3078203 | 6:46 pm on Sep 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
A Strict Doctype is not synonymous with a strictly correct site There is a choice of DTD's, this choice does not equate to going "forward or back", rather you choose the one that fits ~ there are Doctypes that invoke Quirks rendering mode, and those that invoke strict rendering mode again you choose the one that fits, you put the glory button at the bottom which validates that you've been aware enough to check and you indeed validate to the recommendation, you've chosen the one that fits If I were to walk into a shop knowing I want a size 6 to fit (cos the latest supermodel standard says it's best!), but only a 10 does, is it better to squeeze into a 6 or be true to the norm and look great in a 10?
|
eSite
msg:3078207 | 6:52 pm on Sep 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
> Who is requiring it?
I am. Anyway, frames are a bad browsing experience, I don't want to use them.
|
|
