Forum Moderators: open
<html>
<head>
...
</head>
<body>
...
<html>
<head>
...
</head>
<body>
...
</body>
</html>
...
</body>
</html>
I know this is not good and will not validate, but I can't really see any problem when looking at the page. So what is the real problem with it?
I can probably do it for a long time, maybe years, without a problem. I might even come to rely on it, helping track who's gotten my name from which junk mail list, sending a stalker ex-girlfriend to a nonexistent unit, boasting of a "different" address for a home business :).
But at any time, the friendly postman who knows me might retire and the new person might be a stickler, returning anything with a malformed addresses to the sender. Maybe the postal service will reorganize ZIP codes as they often do, and the next town over will get its own. Maybe a developer will building a new subdivision with a street whose correct spelling is the same as my street's misspelling.
In other words, just because "it works in IE" even though it's incorrect doesn't mean you should get in the habit of deviating from the standard. Communication depends on reasonable adherence to standards; if everyone deliberately misspelt their street names all the time, the postal system's famed quality of service :) would certainly decline further. And so a World-Wide Web that depends on browsers' limitless forgiveness will work far less well than one in which everyone tries to use its languages and protocols-- if not correctly-- predictably.
I've never really checked anything of that kind in IE. The point is, it works in IE, Opera, NS7 and even NS4.7!
My problem is I have to take care of a page for a client. That page includes another file. The guy who ows the page insists on not letting me touch that included file of his (which of course has those ominous <html> tags). :(
What I need is an argument as to what will happen if he doesn't let me correct it. And as much as I like your mailman story, that won't do it...
When i code a windows app, if I write sloppy code, that doesn't meet the specifications of the language, I can't even compile it. It doesn't work.
This forces things to be done PROPERLY, so my software works on all PCs running windows. Irregardless of the version (to some extent) and the patch level.
I WISH all browsers would be the same. Comform to the same standards, and if a page is not 100% valid, refuse to display it.
Force internet developers to do things properly, and stop the madness!
[edited by: pageoneresults at 3:47 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2004]
Line 5, column 6: end tag for "head" which is not finished (explain...).
</head>
^
Line 7, column 5: document type does not allow element "html" here (explain...).
<html>
^
Line 9, column 6: end tag for "head" which is not finished (explain...).
</head>
^
Line 11, column 6: end tag for "body" which is not finished (explain...).
</body>
^
Line 13, column 6: end tag for "body" which is not finished (explain...).
</body>
^
Line 16, column 5: document type does not allow element "html" here (explain...).
<html>
Its not valid HTML. Also, during the validation, it almost appeared as if the validator was choking a little bit on that code. Just think what a spider might do when trying to parse that.
Understanding the reason why he is reluctant to have the head and container tags stripped may be the key-- is he importing scripts, preloading images, defining alternative styles, or something else in the <head> or a body attribute essential to the functionality of the included content? Or perhaps he wants to reserve the capability to do so in the future?
The page will validate, be spider friendly and you have not touched his page. Everybody happy.
...like my boss?...
like my boss?...
Yup. ;) Bosses are wrong too!
I've never seen anything that says it's wrong to reverse the order, and it might help in a page with a lot of Javascript that never gets changed (but with a frequently-updated content)
