Asp Forum - DOCTYPE Declaration - microsoft.public.frontpage.programming

Harry

3/6/2004 9:47:00 PM

What is the correct HTML level to include in a DOCTYPE
Declaration for a document developed with front page 2000?

5 Answers

=?Utf-8?B?cm9kY2hhcg==?=

3/6/2004 11:43:00 PM

According to the article below, Frontpage 2000 doesn't
support the doctype tag. I don't use doctype tags when I
use Frontpage (not too often, I'm trying to do stuff
myself) but I suggest you try inserting one and then
trying to validate with the W3C validator and see what
happens. I'd try starting with the HTML 4.01
transitional, I haven't seen a wysiwyg editor yet that
can do xhtml (except maybe Amaya). If you want the first
link is the list of acceptable doctypes, I imagine HTML
3.2 or 4.01 transitional are your best bets. Note that if
you define a doctype, you should validate the page at W3C
(pointless adding one if your page doesn't comply to the
standards).

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd...

http://www.webhelpinghand.com/frontpage2000_thin...
ware_of.htm

>-----Original Message-----
>What is the correct HTML level to include in a DOCTYPE
>Declaration for a document developed with front page
2000?
>.
>

Steve Easton

3/7/2004 1:20:00 AM

Be aware that using the wrong doctype declaration will cause more problems
than not having one at all, because the doctype declaration also determines
how a browser interprets the html and renders a page. Pages without
doctypes are rendered by a browser in a "default" mode.

Also, just because you declare a doctype does not necessarily mean your
pages will validate with W3C. For example, colored scroll bars work in IE
5.5 and 6, but will never validate with W3C.

I have yet to use doctypes, but then I don't validate with W3C either.

W3C is not a "governing" organization, they just make recommendations for
the purpose of trying to ensure "cross platform compatibility."

--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer

"Duncan" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:841501c403d4$cefffed0$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> According to the article below, Frontpage 2000 doesn't
> support the doctype tag. I don't use doctype tags when I
> use Frontpage (not too often, I'm trying to do stuff
> myself) but I suggest you try inserting one and then
> trying to validate with the W3C validator and see what
> happens. I'd try starting with the HTML 4.01
> transitional, I haven't seen a wysiwyg editor yet that
> can do xhtml (except maybe Amaya). If you want the first
> link is the list of acceptable doctypes, I imagine HTML
> 3.2 or 4.01 transitional are your best bets. Note that if
> you define a doctype, you should validate the page at W3C
> (pointless adding one if your page doesn't comply to the
> standards).
>
> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd...
>
> http://www.webhelpinghand.com/frontpage2000_thin...
> ware_of.htm
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >What is the correct HTML level to include in a DOCTYPE
> >Declaration for a document developed with front page
> 2000?
> >.
> >

Jon

3/8/2004 12:09:00 AM

> Be aware that using the wrong doctype declaration will cause more
> problems than not having one at all, because the doctype declaration
> also determines how a browser interprets the html and renders a page.

Could you give an example? I would take it to mean standards vs quirks and
probably most importantly the MS vs "standards" box model. Standards/quirks
depends on a full doctype (ie with a url) a doctype like this
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
won't do anything and is probably a waste of space.

> Also, just because you declare a doctype does not necessarily mean
> your pages will validate with W3C.
a doctype has nothing to with validating a page with the w3c - validation
depends on your code being right or not

Jon
Microsoft MVP - FP

Steve Easton wrote:
> Be aware that using the wrong doctype declaration will cause more
> problems than not having one at all, because the doctype declaration
> also determines how a browser interprets the html and renders a page.
> Pages without doctypes are rendered by a browser in a "default" mode.
>
> Also, just because you declare a doctype does not necessarily mean
> your pages will validate with W3C. For example, colored scroll bars
> work in IE
> 5.5 and 6, but will never validate with W3C.
>
> I have yet to use doctypes, but then I don't validate with W3C either.
>
> W3C is not a "governing" organization, they just make recommendations
> for the purpose of trying to ensure "cross platform compatibility."
>
>
> "Duncan" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:841501c403d4$cefffed0$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>> According to the article below, Frontpage 2000 doesn't
>> support the doctype tag. I don't use doctype tags when I
>> use Frontpage (not too often, I'm trying to do stuff
>> myself) but I suggest you try inserting one and then
>> trying to validate with the W3C validator and see what
>> happens. I'd try starting with the HTML 4.01
>> transitional, I haven't seen a wysiwyg editor yet that
>> can do xhtml (except maybe Amaya). If you want the first
>> link is the list of acceptable doctypes, I imagine HTML
>> 3.2 or 4.01 transitional are your best bets. Note that if
>> you define a doctype, you should validate the page at W3C
>> (pointless adding one if your page doesn't comply to the
>> standards).
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd...
>>
>> http://www.webhelpinghand.com/frontpage2000_thin...
>> ware_of.htm
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> What is the correct HTML level to include in a DOCTYPE
>>> Declaration for a document developed with front page
>> 2000?
>>> .

Fattuchus

12/16/2009 1:59:00 PM

On Dec 16, 8:42 am, Frank from Deeeetroit <dadurwe...@voyager.net>
wrote:
> On Dec 16, 12:23 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 11:50 pm, Guye <g...@beatlemaniaspam.com> wrote:
>
> > > I heard on the radio today that the famous shot of the Beatles walking
> > > across the street on the Abbey Road cover is the last known picture
> > > with all four Beatles in it.
>
> > > Interesting what you can find ouit on the radio still.....
>
> > From what I've seen on the web, this picture is from the last photo
> > shoot.
>
> >http://www.fanpop.com/spots/the-beatles/images/7018566/titl......
>
> No smiles, kind of odd.

Certainly not a favorite photo for me. No smiles, lots of hair.

John looks like he belongs in some commune or religous community.

Peach

12/16/2009 3:16:00 PM

On Dec 15, 10:23 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 11:50 pm, Guye <g...@beatlemaniaspam.com> wrote:
>
> > I heard on the radio today that the famous shot of the Beatles walking
> > across the street on the Abbey Road cover is the last known picture
> > with all four Beatles in it.
>
> > Interesting what you can find ouit on the radio still.....
>
> From what I've seen on the web, this picture is from the last photo
> shoot.
>
> http://www.fanpop.com/spots/the-beatles/images/7018566/titl......

That's the one I was thinking of....beards and hats. ;-) Thanks for
finding it!

Peach

microsoft.public.frontpage.programming

DOCTYPE Declaration

Harry

=?Utf-8?B?cm9kY2hhcg==?=

Steve Easton

Jon

Fattuchus

Peach

x Login to ForumsZone