|
Post by Jangles on Apr 4, 2007 19:47:39 GMT -8
Unnacceptable. It looks to me like you are going for HTML 4.01 Transistional though...
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
|
|
|
Post by Southall on Apr 5, 2007 5:25:48 GMT -8
Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Apr 5, 2007 11:01:24 GMT -8
I have no what?
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Apr 5, 2007 12:17:24 GMT -8
I was thinking the same thing. Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Southall on Apr 5, 2007 15:39:08 GMT -8
I don't know, but I've got a brand new combine harvester - AND I'll give you the key.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Apr 5, 2007 19:13:01 GMT -8
Southall's does. Basically, it's just a way of telling browsers (and anyone snooping on your code) what type of language you're using. What Jangles posted says, "This document is written in HMTL, version 4.01 transitional, according to the guidelines set up by the web consortium, which you can visit on this address". Anyway, the site doesn't validate. I'd start there.
|
|
|
Post by Jangles on Apr 8, 2007 15:05:06 GMT -8
Well, it actually doesn't matter in your case, Jon. If you use straight HTML, all browsers will render it correctly. It won't be considered "valid" for geeks like me, but it renders fine in any browser. If you were using a lot of javascript and CSS though, the page would actual render and/or function differently without that doctype declaration. I can't believe how you, filmtracks, and that crappy movie-rave site have such huge sites that aren't database driven. at least in some respect!
At the time, I was more or less striking back because my beard thing wasn't good...it's pretty good now though.
|
|
|
Post by Jon Broxton on Apr 8, 2007 22:05:13 GMT -8
I still have no clue what you're on about. I just type HTML coding in Word, and add a few graphics in!
|
|
|
Post by Jangles on Apr 11, 2007 21:43:52 GMT -8
Vista the Suck
|
|