PDA

View Full Version : dreamweaver 2004 invalid xhtml

angiras
11-04-2003, 04:57 AM
just to say that I am really surprised to see that the very last dreamweaver version is unable to generate valid xhml

even if you ask for it , of course !

you keep getting :

<table border="1" cellspacing =...

in sted of

<table style="border-width:1px; ....."

really except hand coding they are no tools !!!!
M@rco
11-04-2003, 07:18 PM
Not true. That is perfectly valid XHTML (remember, XHTML is merely XMLized HTML). The border attribute has not magically been deprecated, and IMHO your suggested alternative is "worse" not "better", since it uses inline CSS rather than external (or at least page-level) CSS, and thereby provides negligible improvement in separation of content and presentation.
angiras
11-04-2003, 07:32 PM
I was speaking of course of STRICT xhtml

and it is even not valid transitional >>> no alt in img tags and so on .....

then it is perfectly nearlly transitional
M@rco
11-05-2003, 01:01 AM
I definitely typed a long reply earlier this evening and hit the "Submit Reply" button, but it seems it got lost in the ether...

To cut a long story short, I had two points:

1) Dreamweaver doesn't claim to generate XHTML 1.0/Strict docs, only transitional and frameset, but it WILL let you edit any XML/HTML document.

2) The img element's alt tag has NOT been deprecated in XHTML 1.0 Transitional - see the W3C specs (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Transitional)!<!ELEMENT img EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST img
%attrs;
src %URI; #REQUIRED
alt %Text; #REQUIRED
longdesc %URI; #IMPLIED
height %Length; #IMPLIED
width %Length; #IMPLIED
usemap %URI; #IMPLIED
ismap (ismap) #IMPLIED
>
angiras
11-05-2003, 05:27 AM
just try >>>

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-Transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
</head>
<body>
<table width="200" border="1" cellspacing="4" cellpadding="7">
<tr>
<td nowrap="nowrap">&nbsp;</td>
<td bgcolor="#999966">&nbsp;</td>
<td><img src="any.jpg" width="700" height="476" /></td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>


here >>>

validator (http://validator.w3.org/)

Dreamweaver doesn't put any empty alt ... you MUST have at least >>> alt=""

a big part of developpers want strict 1.0 or 1.1. , ..... I do !

and to edit xml I use XMLSpy
M@rco
11-05-2003, 07:50 AM
Well, first of all I did what you must have done and clicked Check Page-->Validate Markup (Shift-F6).... which did NOT pick up the missing alt attribute, and rather astonished me.

However, a quick look in Help reveals that to check an XML or XHTML document, you need to do Check Page-->Validate as XML, which makes DW actually retrieve the DTD specified in the document, and validate the document against it. It then DOES pick up the missing ALT tag.

Try it! ;)
angiras
11-05-2003, 08:49 AM
This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.

Line 12, column 57: required attribute "alt" not specified (explain...).
<td><img src="silence.jpg" width="700" height="476" /></td>


here is the result of the page

anyway I do not care of transitional XHTML and I don't want to fight for or against dreamweaver .... :-)))

I just thought, they could render a clean XHTML STRICT 1.1 file , ..... if asked
M@rco
11-05-2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by angiras
anyway I do not care of transitional XHTML and I don't want to fight for or against dreamweaver .... :-)))I *do* care about transitional, but don't want to fight either...! :)

However, what you just posted is correct (the document is being parsed as Transitional, and there is not alt attribute on the image, so an error is thrown), so I don't understand what the problem is (presumably you posted it because you thinkg there's something wrong with it): This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.

Line 12, column 57: required attribute "alt" not specified (explain...).
<td><img src="silence.jpg" width="700" height="476" /></td>

:confused:
angiras
11-05-2003, 09:46 AM
Dreamweaver does not generate the alt attribute
normally he must add it even it is empty

then my friend it is even not transitional :-)))

a shame because such an interrsting discussion will be better drínking a beer around a table somewher in the world, looking for girls in the street :-)
mindlessLemming
11-08-2003, 05:18 AM
I'm amazed at just how BAD DWmx2004 renders Xhtml1 Transitional! (it may render others as badly, but this is my primary Doctype ATM)

The 'what you see is what you get' is a crock 'o' ****! My page validates fine (Xhtml1Trans, CSS2) and even IE 5 renders it 'almost' pixel perfect but DW displays useless crap that has my content about 700px out of the screen as well as displaying my "Your browser does not support CSS" message which is hidden with "display:none" via the span's class.:p

Admittedly, it's closer to the truth than MX, but is so far off the mark that I think there must be a setting somewhere that's not right..

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.:(


[edit] Cool, this forum won't let you swear:D
angiras
11-08-2003, 07:20 AM
I see that I am not alone to be found of DreamWeaver :-)))

I just use it to have a short look when I am lost with rowspan and colspan, and to get html code.... but I have to clean it before


Visual Studio is even worst
M@rco
11-08-2003, 09:56 AM
DW MX / 2004 is certainly far from perfect, but it's the best we've got for the moment...

However, you can do something about it by reporting your problems via Macromedia's bug report/feature request form:
http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
mindlessLemming
11-08-2003, 10:10 AM
M@rco:
Thanks for the link; complaint submitted.
M@rco
11-08-2003, 10:16 AM
angiras, perhaps you could do the same too? ;)
angiras
11-08-2003, 11:09 AM
.. I really use Dreamweaver once or twice a month half an hour

If they want to avoid an easy compatibility it is their problem

but I've filled the form .....


as you've suggested nothing new or better under the sun

thanks for the link and for the beer :-))