Browsers Options

[RexHatch]

I coded a website, while checking it in Google Chrome, and it looks fine. But in Internet Explorer it is completely messed up. Did I code something wrong? Or is there some way to make it look good in Internet Explorer, at least? It's for school, and I have no idea what I did wrong...

http://www.togiveyouthestars.comuv.com

And my css is attached.

Any help is appreciated!

[Christian J]

There are a few CSS errors: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validat...ng=&lang=en

Also the HTML validator refuses to validate due to some unrecognized bytes on line 35: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://w...tars.comuv.com/

[RexHatch]

Would making those changes fix it? I don't see anything wrong on line 35, though...

[pandy]

A single curly instead of a prim. Don't use Word and the like do edit HTML or content, unless you take care to turn off the (not so) smart quotes.

CODE

That’s at least a billion trillion! <-- wrong
That's at least a billion trillion! <-- right

Strange error message though. There is no character encoding information, which "our" validator points out.
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.c...s&input=yes

[Christian J]

Would making those changes fix it?

No idea, but validation is the first step in troubleshooting.

You may also want to give the various page sections borders to easier see how they behave.

[Christian J]

Strange error message though. There is no character encoding information, which "our" validator points out.

Doesn't the

CODE

<meta charset="utf-8">

suffice?

Also I've completely forgotten the details, but don't you sometimes have to save the file as UTF-8 as well? Why is that, and does it matter for validation?

http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.c...s&input=yes

A note to the OP: our WDG validator doesn't support HTML5 Doctypes, so you should ignore the validator errors in the link above (I think pandy just posted it to show what the WDG validator says about the character encoding). Use the W3C validator to validate pages with HTML5 Doctypes.

[RexHatch]

Jeez, it says basically every line is wrong!

And I don't use Word, I use notepad...

[pandy]

Strange error message though. There is no character encoding information, which "our" validator points out.

Doesn't the

CODE

<meta charset="utf-8">

suffice?

Not unless HTML5 has changed that too. Has it?

Also I've completely forgotten the details, but don't you sometimes have to save the file as UTF-8 as well? Why is that, and does it matter for validation?

That's if you use other than ASCII characters.

[pandy]

Not unless HTML5 has changed that too. Has it?

Yes it has. Sigh. I stand corrected.

[pandy]

Jeez, it says basically every line is wrong!

Don't mind that. This validator doesn't do HTML5, that's why there are so many errors.

And I don't use Word, I use notepad...

That curly can't be produced by Notepad. Unless MS also has made strange changes. Maybe you copied text from another document or something.

[Christian J]

Not unless HTML5 has changed that too. Has it?

Yes it has. Sigh. I stand corrected.

Isn't it ironic how XHTML tried to be as strict it could be, while HTML5 gives amnesty to almost every sloppy practice ever devised?

But I was wondering about HTML4 as well. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/charset.html#h-5.2.2 says

"To address server or configuration limitations, HTML documents may include explicit information about the document's character encoding; the META element can be used to provide user agents with this information.

For example, to specify that the character encoding of the current document is "EUC-JP", a document should include the following META declaration:
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=EUC-JP">

The META declaration must only be used when the character encoding is organized such that ASCII-valued bytes stand for ASCII characters (at least until the META element is parsed)."

[pandy]

Uhm, exactly what do you wonder about?

[Christian J]

If the META charset sufficed to tell the validator which character encoding is used.

[pandy]

Yeah, because that short Meta tag is OK in HTML5 (if I understood the spec right) but it isn't in HTML pre 5, so our validator marked it as an error.

I don't think I'm going to like HTML5 much...

[Christian J]

but it isn't in HTML pre 5, so our validator marked it as an error.

But I get the impression the HTML5 Doctype made the whole page unintelligible for the validator, so the latter can't recognize the META charset. I'd like to test with an HTML4 web page that has a META charset but lacks a charset HTTP header, but I'm too lazy to create one.

[pandy]

No need, it will flag it as an error. 'content' is a required attribute. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-META

BTW you wouldn't have needed to create a whole document. Use the paste-in feature.
http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/direct.html.en

I think the validator can read the page alright, but since it has a valid doctype it can't assume HTML 4.01 Transitional as it does when the doctype is invalid or missing, hence the strange error messages.

[Christian J]

No need, it will flag it as an error. 'content' is a required attribute. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-META

Come again? I was thinking of pages with a correct META charset but missing charset HTTP header.

BTW you wouldn't have needed to create a whole document. Use the paste-in feature.
http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/direct.html.en

That's not the same as a served web page with missing charset HTTP header, or?

I think the validator can read the page alright, but since it has a valid doctype it can't assume HTML 4.01 Transitional as it does when the doctype is invalid or missing, hence the strange error messages.

Maybe the validator can check the basic HTML (or SGML?) syntax, but it has no idea which element- or attribute names that are allowed in an unknown HTML version, or what the purpose of say "META" is in it (there's a beer brand in Ethiopia called Meta). Consequently I'm not sure if the validator acknowledges a charset set with a META element in an unknown HTML version.

[pandy]

No need, it will flag it as an error. 'content' is a required attribute. http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#edef-META

Come again? I was thinking of pages with a correct META charset but missing charset HTTP header.

'content' is the only required attribute. 'charset' isn't even an attribute in HTML 4.01. This below would validate but not the OPs tag that HTML5 lets pass.

CODE

<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

BTW you wouldn't have needed to create a whole document. Use the paste-in feature.
http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/direct.html.en

That's not the same as a served web page with missing charset HTTP header, or?

But you wanted to see if an incomplete meta tag would validate. Just paste it into the template.

But I see now I misread. You asked about a meta tag without http-equiv. I thought you meant the very short version the OP uses. The latter is what doesn't validate as HTML 4.01.

I used to think you needed to have either http-equiv or name, but stumbled over the fact that neither is required...

Maybe the validator can check the basic HTML (or SGML?) syntax, but it has no idea which element- or attribute names that are allowed in an unknown HTML version, or what the purpose of say "META" is in it (there's a beer brand in Ethiopia called Meta). Consequently I'm not sure if the validator acknowledges a charset set with a META element in an unknown HTML version.

Didn't follow that.

[Christian J]

'content' is the only required attribute. 'charset' isn't even an attribute in HTML 4.01. This below would validate but not the OPs tag that HTML5 lets pass.

CODE

<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

You've misunderstood me completely. When I wrote "META charset", I just meant an ordinary META element like in your example above. I didn't mean any nonexisting "CHARSET" attribute.

That's not the same as a served web page with missing charset HTTP header, or?

But you wanted to see if an incomplete meta tag would validate. Just paste it into the template.

No, I just wanted to know what the validator said about an online web page with a charset specified by a valid HTML4 META element, but without any charset sent in the HTTP header.

But I see now I misread. You asked about a meta tag without http-equiv.

No!

[pandy]

to most of that. But I understood the below bit and why would the validator complain about that?

No, I just wanted to know what the validator said about an online web page with a charset specified by a valid HTML4 META element, but without any charset sent in the HTTP header.

BTW that wasn't what you originally SAID. So there!