Re: Are "include files" serach egine friendly and HTML/XHTML compliant?

It's right, proper, and correct to make the doctype the first line in the
file.

If xfile would show us the pages that are not validating, someone could tell
him/her precisely why they are not, instead of vaguely speculating about
what might or might not be happening....

--
Murray
--------------
MVP FrontPage


"Ronx" <ronx917@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OoZpZqOyGHA.1288@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I always place the <!doctype> as the first line in the page, everything
else follows it.
The pages render correctly in all browsers (that I have checked), and the
validators are happy.

Right or wrong? It works, so no worries.
--
Ron Symonds - Microsoft MVP (FrontPage)
Reply only to group - emails will be deleted unread.
FrontPage Support: http://www.frontpagemvps.com/

"xfile" <cou-cou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uJEUZfKyGHA.2208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

You are absolutely correct that I did not understand most of things I
were told here.

Although I think I understood your points from 1-6, I don't really
understand 7, 8 and what Murray meant "incorrect".

But I guess it's not important, and I can simply live with something I
don't really understand since there are too many.

But just to share, I did try with a blank page produced by EWD and tested
it only with included files and not with it.

Nothing else were included and that's how I derived the conclusion. I
don't know what kind of mistakes could I possibly make under that test.

But again, as long as the rest of HTML codes are compliant with the
standard and when ASP include files and codes are being added can do the
job - I am more than happy to care for why HTLM Validator produce errors
when those two are combined.

Many thank for all of your kind sharing!

Again, I don't know in that case, what mistakes could I possibly make?
"Kevin Spencer" <uce@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:euyKUNEyGHA.4972@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Final note - Although I don't know the "scientific" reasons for this, I
am almost certain that these so-called HTML Validators are not very
friendly with include files (or CodePage).
I guess it's because include files and doctype tag are fighting with
each other for the top position on the page, and HTML Validator tends
to favor doctype tag better. Once include files are removed, it can
correctly ID doctype tag and others. Once include files are placed on
the top position, it even told me that I should not put doctype tag at
that position (or "instance" in its own word) which is right below the
include files.

This is because you did not understand what you were told:

1. HTML is text. You can create HTML with NotePad.
2. ASP is a technology that dynamically generates HTML (text)
3. An include file is simply a separate file that is inserted into
another and returned as part of the other file. The files are combined
into a single file and processed as if they were one file.
4. The include file is exactly like any other ASP page in every other
respect.
5. ASP coding does not go to the browser, only the HTML that it
generates.
6. You create the ASP pages and server-side includes.
7. Therefore, you decide what HTML it will produce.
8. Therefore, if the HTML doesn't validate, it is your doing.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Chicken Salad Surgery

It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken salad.


"xfile" <cou-cou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OCUf1UByGHA.2516@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

Actually, that is the one I used when I was at W3C researching the
differences between different doctypes and HTML standards.

And the test was against the page residing in the server. I apologize
though for not providing pages or site name. I just don't feel
comfortable for providing site name on the net.

In any case, I have done the test by removing all ASP codes and have it
tested against only HTML contents and also done the corrections.

Just for reference:

No.1 error: No closing tag - I did not know that and my best friend FP
did not do it for me or remind me.

No 2 error: No alt attribute for image files - Well, purely my fault -
too lazy for doing it for all images.

Final note - Although I don't know the "scientific" reasons for this, I
am almost certain that these so-called HTML Validators are not very
friendly with include files (or CodePage).

I guess it's because include files and doctype tag are fighting with
each other for the top position on the page, and HTML Validator tends
to favor doctype tag better. Once include files are removed, it can
correctly ID doctype tag and others. Once include files are placed on
the top position, it even told me that I should not put doctype tag at
that position (or "instance" in its own word) which is right below the
include files.

In any case, I found Expression Web Developer will add those closing
tags and hopefully it will do so for other elements as well.

Thanks for your kind advise.


"Jens Peter Karlsen [FP-MVP]" <jpkarlsen@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g0nqe2haa4mcmd86fjaujvrm6t8v19928s@xxxxxxxxxx
It sounds to me like the html validator you talk about is a local tool
which you use to open the asp file directly from your harddrive?
If so that will never work. You must go thru the Server so it sees the
generated html not the raw asp code.
try W3Cs validator at:
http://validator.w3.org/
Point it to the URL of your *.asp page and see what it says.

Since you seem unwilling to post an URL here, we can't help you any
further.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:23:51 +0800, "xfile"
<cou-cou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Continue from (4), I did find, HTML Validator will still give errors
for
left codes such as <%productquantity%> - just an example, it will give
error
messages, such as Windows runtime error (can't remember correctly) or
font
attribute error which those fonts are not listed in this page.

I assumed header section has been interpreted correctly, because I
could
find our site and major pages from Goggle with our description tag. On
the
other hand, HTML Validator says the other way.

In any case, my intension of the question is very simple. I am
satisfied
with our pages but also wish to make it more "compliant" with HTML
standard,
so they are cleaner and maybe good for search engine and visitors.

In fact, I am just confused by if ASP page is counted as HTML page? If
it's
not, some errors are fine to be forgotten and I could just use plain
page
for verification and then insert codes. If it is treated 100%as HTML
page,
I then have to dig deeper into those codes.











.