[Uploader] [CODE]

~~Independent~~ · 11-06-2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Jewish Bear

No I mean strict PHP, when I use terms I don't get them wrong so it's probably better to just not waste your time correcting me :8

I meant do you mean strict XHTML because you said Invalid HTML, I wasn't correcting

Decode · 11-06-2008, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Minor

I meant do you mean strict XHTML because you said Invalid HTML, I wasn't correcting

At the top of the page it just says <html> not <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> so the browser should think its HTML 4.0 (i think lol)

off topic: why arnt u in school today

~~Independent~~ · 11-06-2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Tom743

At the top of the page it just says <html> not <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> so the browser should think its HTML 4.0 (i think lol)

off topic: why arnt u in school today

If you meant me, ill.

on-topic: I'm lazy and I use functions for the headers

Dentafrice · 11-06-2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Minor

You mean strict xHTML,

xHTML (Valid) is just a waste of time.

You are really getting on my nerves, thinking you know something.

Valid xHTML is not a waste of time, I just believe that you don't actually know what it is, and how to use it.

Originally Posted by Minor

I meant do you mean strict XHTML because you said Invalid HTML, I wasn't correcting

There is a difference, strict/invalid xHTML or strict/invalid HTML, you could go on an on.

~~Independent~~ · 11-06-2008, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Dentafrice

You are really getting on my nerves, thinking you know something.

Valid xHTML is not a waste of time, I just believe that you don't actually know what it is, and how to use it.

There is a difference, strict/invalid xHTML or strict/invalid HTML, you could go on an on.

Nah, if you take a look it's just a ribbon that you can add to a page (Well a different shape obviously w3)

frontpage / dreamweaver doesn't produce valid xHTML, so IMO it's not worth the time of changing all the code to valid xHTML.

Agnostic Bear · 11-06-2008, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Minor

Nah, if you take a look it's just a ribbon that you can add to a page (Well a different shape obviously w3)

frontpage / dreamweaver doesn't produce valid xHTML, so IMO it's not worth the time of changing all the code to valid xHTML.

It is worth it, browsers render valid code faster than invalid code. And you can use xml if you want.

~~Independent~~ · 11-06-2008, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Jewish Bear

It is worth it, browsers render valid code faster than invalid code. And you can use xml if you want.

I never knew that.

Dentafrice · 11-06-2008, 02:02 PM

#1, Frontpage sucks and is outdated.

#2, Dreamweaver does.. unless you have edited the template.

Agnostic Bear · 11-06-2008, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dentafrice

#1, Frontpage sucks and is outdated.

#2, Dreamweaver does.. unless you have edited the template.

Expression Web 2 is the way to go :8

Dentafrice · 11-06-2008, 02:45 PM

It drives me crazy when you try and integrate it with PHP, as the encoding is always ****** up.

Thread: [Uploader] [CODE]

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions