doctype for frontpage; other posts not helpful

C

candles

i went to W3. org but it was not helpful. I tried several doctypes and tried
the validator and they all showed errors. Which type is used for FP 2002?
 
C

candles

Thanks Kathleen, I did try that one and it told me that it was not a
transitional doc. and came up with all kinds of errors. I am so confused.
 
K

Kathleen Anderson [MVP - FrontPage]

Using a DOCTYPE will not automagically make your HTML valid. The DOCTYPE
does two things: it tells the HTML validator what guidelines to use when
validating your page, and it suggests to the browser how to render your
page. Making your HTML valid (not produce errors in the validator) is up to
you. If you have a URL we could look at, we might be able to help.

--

~ Kathleen Anderson
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
Spider Web Woman Designs
web: http://www.spiderwebwoman.com/resources/
 
J

Jim Carlock

I think what Kathleen wants to say, but for some reason isn't,
is that FrontPage doesn't create valid documents.

FrontPage was developed by Microsoft to target one and only one
browser, Microsoft's own Internet Explorer, and Internet Explorer
doesn't render pages to the specifications that the W3 group
establishes.

What you need to do is edit ALL code FrontPage creates for you
to make it valid for http://validator.w3.org. The code may or may
not work in the wide variety of browsers out there, and validation
isn't necessary but it does help you get an idea on what's right and
what's wrong with HTML and CSS encodings. They also provide
CSS validation at, http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/.

Alot of people also will tell you that invalid HTML and CSS and
XML will reduce your rankings inside the Google search engine,
however, this is incorrect. Google's ranking applies to keywords,
and the density of the keywords inside a document and nothing
else. Google will however banish you from the Google search
engine (possibly forever) if you put hidden links inside your web
page. To see a Google banishment type the following into google's
search engine:

site:aquaticcreationsnc.com
aquaticcreationsnc.com

The hidden links were removed three weeks ago and Google
sent a reply indicating the website might be banished forever,
without providing any details why.

The website is valid and operational without any hidden links
and is found here:

http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/

They build and sell the finest swimming pools in the United
States (but only to residents inside North Carolina).

So a word of caution about putting hidden links inside of web
pages. Don't do it.

Hope this helps.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.
 
T

Tom [Pepper] Willett

I think what Kathleen wants to say, but for some reason isn't,
is that FrontPage doesn't create valid documents.

Cite? Can you also read Kathleen's mind? Can you cite that? Or, is it
pure conjecture on your part?

Tom
 
J

Jim Carlock

Jim Carlock posted:
I think what Kathleen wants to say, but for some reason isn't,
is that FrontPage doesn't create valid documents.
Click to expand...

"Tom [Pepper] Willett" asked:
Cite? Can you also read Kathleen's mind? Can you cite that? Or,
is it pure conjecture on your part?
Click to expand...

No mind reading. Pure conjecture. Poor wording on my part. My
apologies for insinuating that Kathleen didn't want to state that Front-
Page creates invalid documents. I'll state it though...

FrontPage creates invalid documents. Validation isn't required but it's
definitely a good thing to do just to get a better understanding of what's
valid and invalid according to w3 standards. Also, using an extra
web-browser provides the following benefits:

(1) Firefox provides better CSS 2 support.
(2) Firefox provides a JavaScript validation console.
(3) Firefox can be extended by a very useful tool called the WebDeveloper.
(4) Firefox is free, and generally thought to be safer than Internet Explorer,
http://www.mozilla.com/.

;-)

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.
 
J

John Malone

| FrontPage creates invalid documents. Validation isn't required but it's
| definitely a good thing to do just to get a better understanding of what's
| valid and invalid according to w3 standards.

FrontPage is a tool... The next thing will be that "Notepad" can not produce
valid HTML?

A tool is only as good as the person using it.
If you can not get a valid page using FrontPage, then I question "your"
ability.
If you are having problems using FrontPage then you are in the right news
group.
There are people here that can help you learn to use it properly and achieve
the illusive valid page.

John Malone
===================================
| Jim Carlock posted:
| > I think what Kathleen wants to say, but for some reason isn't,
| > is that FrontPage doesn't create valid documents.
|
| "Tom [Pepper] Willett" asked:
| > Cite? Can you also read Kathleen's mind? Can you cite that? Or,
| > is it pure conjecture on your part?
|
| No mind reading. Pure conjecture. Poor wording on my part. My
| apologies for insinuating that Kathleen didn't want to state that Front-
| Page creates invalid documents. I'll state it though...
|
| FrontPage creates invalid documents. Validation isn't required but it's
| definitely a good thing to do just to get a better understanding of what's
| valid and invalid according to w3 standards. Also, using an extra
| web-browser provides the following benefits:
|
| (1) Firefox provides better CSS 2 support.
| (2) Firefox provides a JavaScript validation console.
| (3) Firefox can be extended by a very useful tool called the WebDeveloper.
| (4) Firefox is free, and generally thought to be safer than Internet
Explorer,
| http://www.mozilla.com/.
|
| ;-)
|
| Jim Carlock
| Post replies to the group.
|
|
 
J

Jim Carlock

John Malone said:
FrontPage is a tool... The next thing will be that "Notepad" can
not produce valid HTML?
Click to expand...

Ooof. <g> My keyboard got stuck in my mouth. I babbled nonsense
about FrontPage creating invalid HTML documents and not having
the ability to create valid HTML documents. Specifically though I
want to stress that FrontPage, created few if any DOCTYPE tags for
any of it's fully automated documents.

Let's compare this tool to another automated tool. Let's compare it
to the car with a gear termed D and a gear termed R. We all know
what D represents and if you stick the car in D you expect to go
forward. That's the standard. Compare that to Microsoft, where D
represents N and N represents R and R represents 3. Those are
Microsoft standards, not the world recognized standards. Microsoft
develops such standards for thier operating systems, their tools, and
their web browsers. Now, I agree with you John. Learn to use such
Microsoft standards and be happy with them. <g>

By the way, Notepad has some automated features as well, although
nothing compared to the likes of FrontPage and nothing specifically
dealing with HTML documents as FrontPage was created for.

To see Notepad's automated feature:

(1) Create a new text file,
(2) Open the text file with Notepad and type .LOG as the very first line
(3) Save the file.
(4) Double-click upon the file or otherwise open it with Notepad.

Jim Carlock
Post replies to the group.
 
K

Kevin Spencer

Actually, Jim, HTMl standards are something relatively new, and Microsoft,
like Netscape and other browser and HTML development software vendors, have
been struggling with the lack of good standards for years. It is only
recently that organizations like the W3C and ISO have been able to put
together some solid standards which make sense and can be agreed to by
everyone.

As a result, Microsoft (as well as everyone else) has had the same
difficulty as everyone else is designing software that adheres to these
standards. Have you forgotten the Netscape "layer" tag? The DOCTYPE is not
required in HTML, and is essentially a recent development, in terms of broad
use. A DOCTYPE tag has been of little use until very recently. The important
thing was to make the documents viewable in various popular browsers.

It wasn't until the advent of XML that things began to become very clear.
XML facilitated the use of XSDs and DTDs for a universal method of
establishing and checking document structure, as well as for creating
documents. As a result, even HTML is undergoing a major facelift, and in a
few short years, only XHTML will be used on the WWW. In the meantime, there
are now reliable DTDs for the more recent versions of HTML.

In the meantime, everyone in the industry is re-tooling, and with issues
like backwards-compatibility to deal with, that is not an overnight process.
You should be interested to know that the next generation of Microsoft web
development software (including Microsoft Expression, which is slated to
supplant FrontPage, along with another product specifically for SharePoint)
is not only designed to be able to create standards-based HTML and XHTML,
but will use DTDs to validate the documents by itself, when necessary.

Microsoft has in recent years been very concerned about standards, and is an
active member of the W3C. The next generation of Microsoft Office will be
using an XML document format, rather than the current binary proprietary
format. There are a number of excellent practical reasons for this, but at
the same time, Microsoft should be applauded for their cooperation with the
other players in the business, and their committment to being both a leader
and a follower, not a lone wolf developing their own proprietary standards.

In the meantime, cut these people a break, and realize that these standards
are not some form of law, but are there for the good of everyone. A "valid"
web page may get brownie points for now, but it doesn't determine the
"validity" of the web page. It is the content of the document that validates
it. Have you ever tried validating very many web pages on the Internet? Most
of them will fail at this point. Google's home page, for example, as simple
as it is, fails the W3C validation. Running it through the W3C validator, I
find 46 "errors," including the fact that it does not even *have* a DOCTYPE
tag. Still, Google is possibly the most popular web site on the Internet,
and they are stinking rich.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Show me your certification without works,
and I'll show my certification
*by* my works.
 
P

P@tty Ayers

Tom [Pepper] Willett said:
I think what Kathleen wants to say, but for some reason isn't,
is that FrontPage doesn't create valid documents.
Click to expand...

Of course not. No web editing tool will create valid documents
automatically.
 
P

P@tty Ayers

Thanks Kathleen, I did try that one and it told me that it was not a
transitional doc. and came up with all kinds of errors. I am so confused.
Click to expand...

The main things you need to know to avoid confusion are:

1. No web editing tool writes valid HTML automatically. You have to learn
HTML and CSS and be familiar enough with the code FrontPage is writing to
correct whatever is invalid.

2. You don't *have* to write valid code. It's a guideline. At this point,
you should be studying HTML and CSS and gradually learning what W3C
validation requires. Running your pages through a validator will be a
helpful learning tool, but don't feel your pages all have to validate.
 
J

John Malone

| Specifically though I
| want to stress that FrontPage, created few if any DOCTYPE tags for
| any of it's fully automated documents.

No! you have to put them in yourself... Using Ctrl+Enter (in code view)
and then select what DOCTYPE you are making.. And if it is not listed you
can add the ones you need.
FrontPage is not a mind reader. It has the ability to insert "ANY DOCTYPE"
that you want. YOU must decide what one.

See how easy it is to learn new things? Ctrl+Enter while working in code
view will bring up "code Snippets" (where some DOCTYPES are and more) Now
to add a new snippet or DOCTYPE not listed.

1. On the Tools menu, click Page Options, and then click the Code Snippets
tab.
2. Click Add.
3. In the Keyword box, type the keyword to associate with the code snippet
(code snippet: One or more lines of HTML or other code that is frequently
used. Instead of typing the code, you can insert the code snippet. Microsoft
FrontPage includes several predefined code snippets. You can also create
custom code snippets.).
4. In the Description box, type a friendly name for the code snippet.
5. In the Text box, type the content of your code snippet.
6. Click OK.

I hope this helps you with the problem of no automation of DOCTYPES.
FrontPage can not read minds and you must inform it of the type of document
you wish to make.
One last thing make sure that the DOCTYPE matches the content of the page
XHTML HTML ect...

If you are having other problems please let us know so we can help you find
the right answer.

John Malone
==========================
| > FrontPage is a tool... The next thing will be that "Notepad" can
| > not produce valid HTML?
|
| Ooof. <g> My keyboard got stuck in my mouth. I babbled nonsense
| about FrontPage creating invalid HTML documents and not having
| the ability to create valid HTML documents. Specifically though I
| want to stress that FrontPage, created few if any DOCTYPE tags for
| any of it's fully automated documents.
|
| Let's compare this tool to another automated tool. Let's compare it
| to the car with a gear termed D and a gear termed R. We all know
| what D represents and if you stick the car in D you expect to go
| forward. That's the standard. Compare that to Microsoft, where D
| represents N and N represents R and R represents 3. Those are
| Microsoft standards, not the world recognized standards. Microsoft
| develops such standards for thier operating systems, their tools, and
| their web browsers. Now, I agree with you John. Learn to use such
| Microsoft standards and be happy with them. <g>
|
| By the way, Notepad has some automated features as well, although
| nothing compared to the likes of FrontPage and nothing specifically
| dealing with HTML documents as FrontPage was created for.
|
| To see Notepad's automated feature:
|
| (1) Create a new text file,
| (2) Open the text file with Notepad and type .LOG as the very first line
| (3) Save the file.
| (4) Double-click upon the file or otherwise open it with Notepad.
|
| Jim Carlock
| Post replies to the group.
|
|
 
K

Kulvinder Singh Matharu

i went to W3. org but it was not helpful. I tried several doctypes and tried
the validator and they all showed errors. Which type is used for FP 2002?
Click to expand...

Fix Your Site With the Right DOCTYPE!
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/doctype/

Go ahead, choose the one that most suits what you are coding.

I think most people would go for

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

or

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

However, depending what's been coded, your site may or not validate.
And I guess it's up to you to decide if validation is critical to
what you do. My opinion is that it isn't that critical for most
sites. My site doesn't validate (mostly because I've used NOBR tags
which are not in the X/HTML standards but most browsers support them
anyway).

But some people will get all religious and DEMAND that all sites MUST
validate or you will destroy the Internet forever ;-)

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
 
J

John Malone

Do not get discouraged.
Most of the errors might be easily fixed..
The most common error is "alt" tags.
If you have one missing then W3C will report the whole page as invalid
regardless of the DOCTYPE.

The DOCTYPE Kathleen gave you should cover most pages.

<!doctype HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Try fixing the errors you can.
The "alt" tag is alternative representation text found under picture
properties> general tab> (enter some text to describe the image).

If you are still having problems then post a URL to the page.
This way we can see where the problems are and give you more specific
advice.

John Malone
=====================
|
| Thanks Kathleen, I did try that one and it told me that it was not a
| transitional doc. and came up with all kinds of errors. I am so confused.
|
|
| > Try this one:
| >
| > <!doctype HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
| > "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
|
 
P

P@tty Ayers

But some people will get all religious and DEMAND that all sites MUST
validate or you will destroy the Internet forever ;-)
Click to expand...

It's quite safe to ignore them. :)
 
C

candles

Oh My! a bit surprised to see all the postings and very helpful information!
Thanks all! Here is my quandry; I am already ranked on page 1 of 5 of the
major search engines for my home page. I have been told that if it works,
don't fix it.
I am working on a new page that I would like to get ranked. I thought that
a Doctype would help that situation, because I see it on a lot of pages. If
it would hurt me in the long run, I guess that I don't really care. But I
wanted to optimize the page in every way possible.
If I add a Doctype, and the site is not optimized, will it hurt me when they
spider me? I can go through and fix all the errors, which probably would be
a good thing anyway. Just don't want to mess up my rankings. Does Doctype
have anything to do with rankings.

Funny the fact of hidden links should be brought up. I was seriously
thinking of doing that. Is a link considered hidden if it is the same color
as your background and does not show up on the site? That is what I wanted
to do, but uh..don't think I will. Thanks so much for the information from
all of you. You are all very helpful, and I am so thankful you are here to
help.
 
J

Jim Carlock

candles said:
I am working on a new page that I would like to get ranked.
I thought that a Doctype would help that situation, because
I see it on a lot of pages. If it would hurt me in the long run,
I guess that I don't really care. But I wanted to optimize the
page in every way possible.

If I add a Doctype, and the site is not optimized, will it hurt me
when they spider me?
Click to expand...
I can go through and fix all the errors, which probably would
be a good thing anyway. Just don't want to mess up my rankings.
Does Doctype have anything to do with rankings.
Click to expand...

Doctype has nothing to do with rankings anywhere.
Funny the fact of hidden links should be brought up. I was seriously
thinking of doing that.
Click to expand...

Don't do it. IF you get any complaint at all from anyone at all, Google
will give you about two weeks before they PERMANENTLY ban
you from being listed in Google.

The word permanent is emphasized because they only tell you that
"you may be permanently banned from being listed within Google"
and provide no other details.
Is a link considered hidden if it is the same color as your background
and does not show up on the site?
Click to expand...

Yes. Any text that is either transparent or the same color as the back-
ground or even similar to the background could be considered hidden.

Hope that helps.

Jim Carlock
From the Google banned website which sells swimming pools:
http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/
 
K

Kevin Spencer

At this point, a DOCTYPE tag won't hurt you or help you.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Numbskull

Show me your certification without works,
and I'll show my certification
*by* my works.
 
J

John Malone

Good advice Jim.....8)

John Malone
==================
| > I am working on a new page that I would like to get ranked.
| > I thought that a Doctype would help that situation, because
| > I see it on a lot of pages. If it would hurt me in the long run,
| > I guess that I don't really care. But I wanted to optimize the
| > page in every way possible.
| >
| > If I add a Doctype, and the site is not optimized, will it hurt me
| > when they spider me?
|
| > I can go through and fix all the errors, which probably would
| > be a good thing anyway. Just don't want to mess up my rankings.
| > Does Doctype have anything to do with rankings.
|
| Doctype has nothing to do with rankings anywhere.
|
| > Funny the fact of hidden links should be brought up. I was seriously
| > thinking of doing that.
|
| Don't do it. IF you get any complaint at all from anyone at all, Google
| will give you about two weeks before they PERMANENTLY ban
| you from being listed in Google.
|
| The word permanent is emphasized because they only tell you that
| "you may be permanently banned from being listed within Google"
| and provide no other details.
|
| > Is a link considered hidden if it is the same color as your background
| > and does not show up on the site?
|
| Yes. Any text that is either transparent or the same color as the back-
| ground or even similar to the background could be considered hidden.
|
| Hope that helps.
|
| Jim Carlock
| From the Google banned website which sells swimming pools:
| http://www.aquaticcreationsnc.com/
|
|
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Cannot Change Back to Previous Settings After Clicking "Try the new Outlook" 0
Can't save my Office documents (after computer rebuild and reauthorization) 0
DOCTYPE 2
HTML error 1
what doctype to specifiy and how? 4
Slideshow with black border around it 1
Outlook emails loading very slowly 0
Word Template and Normal Style 1

Top