Trying to validate CSS and HTML but no luck

ok, time to rephrase, I’m totally ok with frontpage. Now, anyone know the answer to the question please?

If you are OK with frontpage then you should be OK with crap results, because that’s all that’s available.

You ask for help, then when something truly helpful is suggested you reject it. That suggests emotional problems to me, so perhaps you should seek help with that.

Then you’re obviously a bit slow between the ears. Just in case you didn’t catch it the first time - I’m ok with frontpage, I just need an answer to the question.

It’s already been answered.

If it had, I wouldn’t be still asking !

Bloody hell guys! Dez isn’t asking for your opinion on his choice of solution, he’s asking if anyone can help him make it work.

If you can help, great - let’s hear from you.
If you can’t, sweet - leave the thread alone.

The answer is to not use frontpage. IF you’re ‘ok’ with it, that’s a “Well there’s your problem” as you are shooting your horse in the foot before the gate even opens… Which is what both Ed and I are implying.

You need to throw out so much markup to ‘fix’ your problems, you might as well start coding pages PROPERLY in the first place… See my signature, if that’s true for dreamweaver, multiply it by a MILLION for frontpage.

What options does Frontpage show when you follow XHTMLCoder’s advice?

Is there a list (e.g. utf-8, utf-16, ISO, etc.)?

… and when the choice of solution is likely the lions share of what’s CAUSING the problems?!?

I’m going to do a rewrite ‘properly’ to show what I mean. Most of his markup needs to go because frontpage is saddling him with total CRAP… Which is what it does.

Thank goodness for a little common sense, but above all, manners! Most of the coders on here have been a great help to me over the last 5 years, but there’s still a few that leave a heck of a lot to be desired!!

Thanks, yes, there’s a list, a mighty long list, but was wondering if anyone knew the right one to choose, to avoid the BOM’s ?

You would want to set it to Unicode I presume. What Unicode options are listed? (e.g. utf-8 and so on)?

I don’t know whether the Latin-1 character set is sufficient for you, so a good idea might be to go with utf-8. So, if you have that option there, choose that one.

In your HTML document, there should be a line that reads:

 <meta http-equiv="Content-Type"  content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

I guess if you can’t do a simple thing like get an image to show properly, then anything else must seem quite complicated for you :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just in case anyone sees this after you’ve changed it, the image of your mistake should also be attached.

Thanks for that kohoutek, the helps appreciated. Yep, the doc language in the file is utf-8

As mentioned, there’s a long list of options for page encoding, but only 3 for unicode, and of those 3, there’s one for unicode-utf - I assume that’s the one to select, but are you saying that if I apply that one, that BOM’s shouldn’t appear anywhere in any of the pages from now on?

… an example of what I mean, since it pitches a third of the markup you had inside body.

The only thing you can learn from frontpage is how NOT to build a website. If this is the first time anyone is telling you this, you’ve been living under a rock for a decade.

Also gets rid of all the horrible artifacting from your using jpeg to do png’s job, and reduced the number of images needed for your rounded corners to a single sub 314 byte file. Remastered a lot of images to that end, and the ‘filmstrip’ menu got hover states and will auto-adjust to however many you want it to show as you add/remove items. (so no displaying blanks except that last ‘fade’ one).

Though I was guessing wildly on what you were trying to do for layout since none of the four primary browsers I use here were giving me the same appearance.

Though it’s NOT actually valid CSS2.1 since FF is a retard about inline-block. NOT that I’d be wasting bandwidth on a website or hanging the page load on a second server to be showing either of the ‘valid’ icons since joe-sixpack visitor could give a flying…

I’m polite by nature, but am struggling to know how else to explain this in very simple terms - I’m okay with frontpage - been using it very successfully for about 8-9 years with no major problems at all - I’m sorry if that breaks protocol in some way for you, but get over it! Website editors are just a tool - which are only as good as the person behind it!!

As Hawk put it - if you can’t help, move on - it isn’t complicated!

Also, what on earth are you going on about rounded corners for ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I’m trying to be polite about this too - what I’m saying is that the page in question is so horribly broken, that character encoding is the LEAST of your problems.

jpeg artifacting, fat bloated broken rounded corners technique (have you seen what 7 does to it?), needless wasteful markup, outdated methodologies, more separate files than necessary to do the job - it’s a train wreck.

But if you think that a page so horribly broken (as evidenced by the screencaps in a previous post) and badly coded - most of which can be blamed on the trash tool you are using … is “fine”, oh well. Have fun being stuck in 1998.

Apparently you don’t care about fixing what’s actually WRONG with the page, and instead are obsessing over character encoding problems on a decade out of date tool that nobody should ever have been using in the first place.

Instead of obsessing about website editors, did it ever occur to you, somewhere in perhaps unreachable intelligent thought patterns, that the site you’re referring to, has absolutely zilch to do with me - Duh!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now, is there any way that you can just heed the Hawks kind (and polite) suggestion at all, she is the moderator, after all!!

My bad, somehow I thought it was your thread given your responses - didn’t realize you bumped a 15 MONTH OLD POST – and I bet a lot of other responders missed that too.

Exactly boy, and a lot of others didn’t start getting obsessed by website editors either. :lol: :lol: