Sun. Feb 17, 2002
Close to the X, Part Two
Close to the X, Part Two – As close as this part of the site is going to get, anyway. My newly updated colophon reports ”Between Brain Dump and Pixel Pile, about 1,000 pages were converted” to XHTML and CSS, despite the fact the colophon page itself is still HTML 4.01 (in fact, all of my ”regular” sections still await conversion). As previously mentioned, I haven’t detailed all the illegal URL’s and quoted text, so not everything validates.
Even when it does validate, it’s … interesting. Zeldman has already reported this oddity of the W3C validators, but for example, take this Pixel Pile archive page. Take it to the W3C HTML validator, and it reports: ”No Errors Found! Congratulations, this document validates as XHTML 1.0 Transitional!” Great, now lets go check the page in the W3C CSS validator: ”Error: org.xml.sax.SAXException: Please, fix your system identifier (URI) in the DOCTYPE rule.” Although the error message is as helpful and informative as monkey gibberish, this seems to indicate the W3C thinks there’s a problem with my XHTML. Which it just said has no errors.
Gawd, I love the web.
P.S. – If you haven’t already, take the time to bookmark ”Better Living Through XHMTL” from A List Apart. It contains lots of valuable links and information, like the answer to the above validator dilemma.
Published 08:23PM, Sun, Feb 17 2002
Category: PhotoDude Dot Com
Previous: «« QuoteLog, 2/17 ««
Next: »» Homework: Iraq FAQ »»
Peanut Gallery
Well, version 0.9.6 (and the ones that preceeded it) read it fine, as did each version of Netscape 6.x I dared to try. Are you using a new build? Have they "improved" it again?
Update: It would appear my host is serving a MIME type of text/plain for .css files. In the causes the latest release of Mozilla, version 0.9.8, to render the page more like Netscape 3.0 ... no styles at all. I'm prodding them to fix it for the sake of others hosted there, but may resort to .htaccess to fix it on my site.



Not sure why, but Mozilla, which has long championed the getElementById syntax, answers it wrong and gives me the low-impact page. You're not the only site, either -- anil dash, too. Perfect time to find this out, isn't it?