Forum Moderators: open
0029:[1]^<style fprolloverstyle>
----:[1]^Error: tag <style> missing required attribute "type".Click here to learn more
0030:A:hover{
0031:color: #ff0000;
0032:}
0033:</style>
0034:</HEAD>
I think of something like
<style fprolloverstyle type="x">
but what is the 'value' of x?
B(ruges) B(elgium) Thanks.
type="text/css" is the attribute, but having fprolloverstyle in the tag is not legal; it should just be <style type="text/css"> (unless you are using some MS FP extension that I don't know about).
What do your <a> tags look like? If they have something like class="fprolloverstyle", then you need
A.fprolloverstyle:hover.... instead of A:hover....
else just leave it out.
Shawn
0029:<style fprolloverstyle type="text/css">A:hover {color: #FF0000; font-size: 10 pt}
0030:</style>
0031:</HEAD>
see the result! no more errors
thanks
Marcial
But it is still not legal html... Why do you want the fprolloverstyle there? Maybe NetMechanic does pass it (haven't tried, I'll take your word for it), but their own web page doesn't validate! Here is what W3C thinks of the superfluous "fprolloverstyle":
This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.Line 4, column 23: "FPROLLOVERSTYLE" is not a member of a group specified for any attribute (explain...).
<style fprolloverstyle type="text/css">A:hover {color: #FF0000; font-size: 10 ..
CSE Validator gives the same complaint.
Some modern browsers are pretty forgiving of errors, and to ensure that they can handle new tags or attributes which come out in the future they just ignore tags or attributes they don't understand, but if you want to make sure it is valid, remove it.
The other improvement you could make is to comment out the css so old browsers don't display it verbatim. i.e.:
<style type="text/css">
<!--
A:hover {color: #FF0000; font-size: 10 pt}
-->
</style>
</head>
Here I am again.
If I use a rather simple way to explain things, the reason for that is that I am a dutch-speaking belgian, and also
I'am completely 'virgin' in this matter, although i'm a 60 years old male, thus retired telecom employee.
So all this 'new things' I've to try out. I did so with the 'improvement'. The result was a 0-error report by NetMechanic (I did'nt doubt one moment.
But i also read the comments about 'SGML parsers and CSE validators' - that was (is) 'chinese' for me - Therefore I used this webferret searching thing, got a lot of links, and finaly found a site titled 'W3C Markup validator service'
The first 'run' returned 4 errors: 3 'alt' and 1 'height'.
Corrections made, I revalidated the url and that was the result. Before the corrections I received a message 'NOT' a valid HTML... Now I understand what that meant...
quote
The document located at <http://users.skynet.be/fa053878/test222.htm> was checked and found to be valid HTML 4.0 Transitional. This means that the resource in question identified itself as “HTML 4.0 Transitional” and that we successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser (depending on the markup language used).
unquote
Is there anything more I can do? Other than deciding whether the hyperlinks should or should not be 'highlighted', what you call 'superfluous'...
Marcial
First off, let me just say that you deserve praise for trying to ensure that the code you write is valid! Too many overlook this important part of Web development.
Now, if you are going to validate your pages, it's best to use the best validator on the Web.
W3C is the organization behind the HTML standard. Their HTML Validator can be found at [validator.w3.org...]
W3C also has a CSS validator at [jigsaw.w3.org...]
What I meant by 'superfluous' was 'not neccesary'. i.e. The "fprolloverstyle " in <style fprolloverstyle type="text/css"> was not neccesary (and also not valid html). I have had a look at your site, and see you have removed it, and you just have <style type="text/css">, which probably helped in validating the site.
"...Is there anything more I can do..." In terms of getting it valid, no (apart from what DrDoc has already suggested: validating the CSS). If W3C validates it, it is valid. In the more general sense of the question, websites continually improve and evolve. So you are probably at the stage where you need to see what your traffic statistics are, see what you position is on various search terms in major search engines, measure the effectiveness of your site in terms of revenue it generates, and then, once you have these, embark on a process of continual improvement.
Shawn
I'v learnt from various sources about a w3c css validator (surprise = that page opened in dutch!), a w3c markup validation service, a system called 'weblint", a cse html validator pro 5.5 (of which i downloaded a 100-test-trial version). First i used both w3c systems, then the weblint (which still returned 2 errors) and finally the cse pro (which returned a missing </TR> not mentionned by the others (?!) and after corrections maden, ended with one message about using not the us-ascii character set and 6 comments - one advising to label the site on www.icra.org - what i deed).
I'm glad this testfile got error free. I renamed it and now it is the underlaying index file for www.beffe.be - so there are more files to check.
Thanks for your great help. Maybe (i think very soon), one day I'll need it again.
Regards from Bruges/Belgium.
