COBOLdinosaur

Is there somewhere in the W3C specifications that applies semantics making a list inside a nav semantically correct? In html4 and XHTML we used unordered list because there was no better alternative. The nav tag was introduced in HTML5 to address the lack of a structure that was specifically for navigation links. If this was a multilevel dropdown menu then there would be some justification for the UL, but I cannot see any logical or practical reason to nest ul inside of nav thus creating an accessibility issues by confusing screen readers trying to comprehend the incomplete semantic model of HTML5.

Not necessarily an old addition, textbook are always well behind the curve; or it might just be a lazy editor, not bothering to check anything except spelling and grammar. Anyway back on topic, just add a css class: .hilitePost { color:red;} And apply it to the text you want red with a span

value is not a global attribute, and the a tag does not specifically support value as an attribute. In theory you should be able to apply name as an attribute and even though you get a validation warning it will still work, but it may be that the problem is trying to define a non-standard attributes dynamically. Is there an error in the console, or is the statement simply being ignored?

Must be the dark glasses ... sorry for the stupidity.

No harsh words basically translates to I want praise, not an honest evaluation. So we can just deal with the fact that the template produces over 140 error before the validator gives up and quits: https://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreamtemplate.com%2Ftemplates%2F777%2F0776.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 That ia with an extremely weak transitional DOCTYPE; I hate to think what it would report if the page used a modern strict doctype. As for the code you posted, I don't no what that has to do with the template. The code does not really do anything except demonstrate a misunderstanding of the correct semantics of HTML5 like sticking ul (meaning a list of items) inside a nav (meaning a list of navigation links).... it has to be one or the other.

Just add your own stylesheet just before the </head> to override the boottrash junk. If you want control of your presentation then start doing your own CSS so you are in control instead of being controlled by the whims of twitter developers.

The s is not quoted therefore JS is looking for a variable named s. I don't see such a variable, and if JS cannot find it either it is not going to do anything but write and error message to the console.

No code= no answer, but I would guess that the PHP has an error.

The better way to do a circle; that will also work in chrome is to have equal height and width and us border-radius:50%. That works for all modern browser without any hyphen hacks like -moz or -webkit. Also if you are using the hyphen hacks then the standards compliant version without the hyphen prefix should be listed last, otherwise it will never be used. by either browser.

You would be a lot less worn our if you fixed the code and brought it up to standards instead of hacking around looking for an easy quick fix based on a lot of nonsense from an SEO validator that has nothing to do with correct code, reliable code, or modern best practices. You need to deal with the technical issues, not SEO, because the number one negative for SEO are pages that don't work right. What you have is a page using 20th century methods, technology, and design. It might have met the expectation of users in 1997, but today it is just going to keep wearing you out until you re-write it to bring it into the 21st century.

If I re-write if for you what do you learn except how to get other people to do your work for you. I would suggest that you look at samples and tutorials for HTML5 and CSS3 that exist right here at w3schools and then do the re-write to modern standards. There is not much code and it is pretty simple, so you should be able to handle yourself, and then if you still have a problem with the page we can help you work through the problems. In the end you will know how the page actually works so you can maintain it.

The code is such a mess that I would be surprised if you did not have trouble with it. A transitional doctype guarantees issues cross-browser and cross device. There are not just validation errors; but it is full of junk like inline styles that just puts trash all over the place to get in the way of maintenance. If you wrote it then you should spend a little time learning basics by access the tutorials on the site. If you paid someone to write it for you, then you were swindled. If you just cut and pasted it together from stuff you found on the internet, then you need to throw it out and start over with at least a valid structure after you learn the basics. As it stands trying to solve any problem on the existing code is like trying to swim across a rushing river while wearing lead boots; you are just going to sink and not get where you need to be.

I would think using a click event instead of a change event might work, but with such horrible code and the very weak doctype who knows what kind of quirks are going to work for any given browser. The code really need to be re-written to enter this century. Just about every possible bad practice in existence lives in that code.

I have spent a very large part of my 50 years programming specializing in security. If you managed to develop what you describe, I would not let it anywhere near any system I was responsible for because it on the lavel of security as a burglar with the keys to your house and car. If you are going to try and develop a CMS, then you need to start by learning the all things you have to defend against for security. Oh and you need to keep up, because there are hacker groups down on the darknet pouring out new threats on a daily basis.

Section comes out of the efforts of WHATWG branch of W3C. The technical recommendations around it are ambitous and there is a lack of real clarity on the difference between section and article that make them look to be redundant.The whole point of introducing a number of so called "semantic" block elements was to reduce the widespread use of div to carry flow data. having both section and article makes thing worse, not better. Keeping div to its intened purpose of carrying style, not content is desirable, but introducing multiple block elements without clearly defining their use serves no interest except the browser manufacturers who control WHATWG and who would rather have loose definitions so they can claim compliance with just about any impllementation. As it stands section can be used anywhere in the body where a block element is allowed, and it is considered semantically correct. It can contain anyand all element types and it is considered to be semantically correct. The only limitation is the recommendation that is start with a header tag, but the validator only issues a soft warning if there is no heading. It is virtually a div with a different name so that it can be deemed semantically correct. As a section the section tag does nothing in terms of real semantics that is not already applied to the hr tag. However every standard from W3C over the years has started out with flaws and eventually they clean up the meaning of things so we know what should be considered "best practice".

Why would need the convoluted and iefficient mapping of the structure when a class will give maximum flexibility, reusability, and less maintenance hassle? .someclass:first-letter {properties... easy on the parser because it only has to process one token, easy on the rendering engine during the paint because it does not have to work through layers to test the dirty flag easy on the developer who does not have to worry about a broken presentation if the layout is changed.

For the new line sequences just replace them with PHP_EOL which not only eliminates the backslash problem for new lines but also eliminates cross-platform issuses.

If all you are doing is a styling change then you don't need the event just do a rule for the targeted element with the declaration: #ido1:target { put the properties here instead of in the e3-colsebtn class. Inline events and inline stylying are bad practice anyway.

<center><img src="lalpicture.jpg" alt="what image shows" height="150" width="200"></center> It is hard believe that anyone would still be suggesting something that is obsolete and has not been considered good practice since the last century.

Setting position:fixed takes them out of the flow so the other elements move up to occupy the spavce that they have vacated. You will need to use margin top on the block below the regions to modify the position. Any time you use fixed or absolute positioning there is going to be a price to pay. It is in general a terrible way to do layout. and forcing something fixed so it is always infront of the user may be a usability/accessibility issues depenfing on what the elements contain.

I have no idea what you are asking for based on nothing but a scrap od CSS and no HTML. CSS on its own does nothing, it needs to be applied to elements and without seeing the markup for the eleemnts there is no way except uninformed guesses about how to proceed. So please post enough information so we can understand the structure and whay you are trying to do.

Then actually replace it: <li class="last leaf"><a href="https://m.facebook.com/xxx" title=""> <img src="/facebook.png" /></a></li> If you make it a background image using CSS it is not clickable and removing the F will leave you wih nothing in the link.

If you post some of the code we might be able to determine what standard it is coded to; though the fact that it has no doctype probably means the quality of the rest of the code is such that it could be anything. The doctype that davej posted is about as loose as you can get and with work with old sloppy code, but if there are any modern HTML5 tags it will have a problem with them. Without a doctype you have probably been rendering in quirks mode so you may find presentation changes as you find the right doctype. The page for the site where you got the code throws 349 errors in the validator when validated as html 4 transitional. the layout and methods in the source are straight out of the 20th century. In the future you probably don't want to consider that site a source of code. As for "widely popular" I don't know how you come to that conclusion; but in any case popularity and quality do not necessarily have a logical or rational relationship and I am not sure you can consider any site as widely popular when they have an Alexa ranking of over 100,000.

I don't think it matters whether it is or blink or webkit. They both support the API. Those are rendering engines, and I would not expect the API core classes to be there. The way Chrome is organized, I would expect it to be in either the user interface modules, or the browser engine modules. The browser engine is the more likely candidate because those modules sit between the UI and the rendering engine; and the browser engine is the key part of interfacing for event handlers. However depending on how primitive a level it is hooking into the O/S it might be in the UI backend which is the piece that interacts with the OS and . A lot of the Chrome documentation is pretty sloppy and the last estimate I saw of its size was something on the order of 7 or 8 million lines of code so outside of the core development teams I doubt there are many who can actually locate specific pieces of code they are working on.

Depends on what you consider proper. If you mean valid code, then If you do very basic static content the major CMS platforms will generally come close to valid. However if you are looking for correct semantically and in compliance with accessibility standards I don't believe you can get consistent results that would be considered "proper". Most certainly there is nothing that will warn you when you do something that will result in non-compliant code, and none do any rating for plugins and themes to give you and idea of what produces clean code. In my experience the only way you get consistently proper markup and CSS is to write your own code and keep strict personal standards.