Guest Pal Coder Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Hello,I want to ask, in HTML I used marquee, but now in XHTML I can't find it in the tags listHow can I use it in XHTML - transitional ? Note : Is there a program to convert from HTML to XHTML ?or i must do iy by myselfthanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I don't think <marque> was ever valid, even in old HTML.It's a vendor tag, created for IE and later adopted for other browsers.I don't think it was ever part of the W3C Recommondations for HTML.And converting doesn't that too long doing it by hand. It only took me like 2 days to convert all my pages from HTML to XHTML.And if you use XHTML Transitional than there's not much to convert, Transitional allows depreciated tags and other things from HTML.If you're going to take the time to convert, I'd convert to XHTML Strict (and I wonder why W3Schools never went that way, they said "Strict is too strict" that's total bull.... it's not that hard to make a page XHTML Strict Valid)This page http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_howto.asp explains how to convert your pages. Note that we used the transitional DTD. We could have chosen the strict DTD, but found it a little too "strict", and a little too hard to conform to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alzable Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 They must have had a reason to say it. It is better for people learning, isn't w3schools supposed to help out new people to HTML and other web languages? No, the marquee tag can be unstable in some browsers. You are better off with Java Script, IF you want a valid document.alzable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 I don't think <marque> was ever valid, even in old HTML.It's a vendor tag, created for IE and later adopted for other browsers.I don't think it was ever part of the W3C Recommondations for HTML.And converting doesn't that too long doing it by hand. It only took me like 2 days to convert all my pages from HTML to XHTML.And if you use XHTML Transitional than there's not much to convert, Transitional allows depreciated tags and other things from HTML.If you're going to take the time to convert, I'd convert to XHTML Strict (and I wonder why W3Schools never went that way, they said "Strict is too strict" that's total bull.... it's not that hard to make a page XHTML Strict Valid)This page http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/xhtml_howto.asp explains how to convert your pages.Note that we used the transitional DTD. We could have chosen the strict DTD, but found it a little too "strict", and a little too hard to conform to. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> While XHTML Strict may not be difficult to make Valid starting from scratch, the matter may be completely different when it involves changing tags and stuff within blocks of ASP code, and even more when you already have a couple hundred asp documents to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Well, then that's just called being lazy.There are editors that will do a "search and replace" to every document on your website at the same time. There's no excuse.I think it's mainly because some of their links have a "target" attribute and they either didn't want to use JavaScript or didn't know how. Since "target" isn't valid in Strict.If I was the webmaster of W3Schools, it would have been Strict years ago.Also, they have the "AA" icon for accessability, but if you check "Access Level 2" in TIDY you'll see that they don't have a "AA" compliant website. They shouldn't even be using the "AA" icon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 or didn't know how.Wow. That's just amazingly arrogant... If I was the webmaster of W3Schools, it would have been Strict years ago.As opposed to Transitional years ago. Yeah, we get that from your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skemcin Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Doing global find a replacements on larger sites is NOT a very good thing to consider unless you have your tape backups ready.I'm not saying that it impossible to do, but unless you have a ture development, test, and production environment - its not easy to make massive sweeping changes - let alone promoting them across all your environments.(just an additional thought to consider) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 About the "but there are a lot of pages...." point, W3C has TONS of pages.They seemed to have been able to convert from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.0 Strict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 As opposed to Transitional years ago. Yeah, we get that from your posts. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True, but when I finally converted from Transitional to Strict it only took me a few hours to do it.If you don't put off what you can do today for tomorrow, it's amazing how fast you can get something done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FirefoxRocks Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I have tried getting someone to convert from HTML 3.2 to XHTML and they chose Transitional. It is easier, and I guess Strict was too much work for them.Anyways, for <marquee>, there are CSS3 properties which aren't supported yet, or there are JavaScript functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now