Firefox view-source:

I deleted the closing bracket for the title of the index.html page on my site, then opened it as a file in Firefox-ESR and clicked the "View Page Source" option.

It highlights the beginning of the error in red and the metatag underneath the error is highlighted in red. …
View attachment 11383

I guess, the redness of the latter is because it can not be distinguished from the former. Visualise these:

<title>Building A FreeBSD Desktop From Scratch</title <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, user-scalable=yes" />

</title <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, user-scalable=yes" />

The normal view-source: view of the non-broken page:

I'm not following. There's a version mismatch between the xml declaration and the doctype. In addition, the doctype is obsolete. No one should be using transitional since 1999.

Deleted member 30996

Are all my posts really that hard to comprehend? I can't tell by this, but it sure seems like it. I'll slow down if it's to that point already.

The sole reason of my posting a screenshot after deleting the closing bracket was to show that it would highlight the error in red, that I might not see if it was real error I had made somewhere on the page, to show how Firefox is getting more intelligent (than us).

I know what it looks like as valid XHTML, mismatched Doctype and all, because I check them all, as shown on the linked page, before I upload them and have a button at the bottom of each page so they can be checked independently.

Because if it's not valid XHTML it's not considered to be XHTML at all, and mine must be or I wouldn't post it till it was. And the W3C validator will fix it for me if I want it to. Graphic illustration to follow:


When W3C says it's not valid anymore, then I'll change the way I write markup. Unless someone wants to start paying me for the work I do on my site.
When W3C says it's not valid anymore, then I'll change the way I write markup.
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional will always be valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional. But that doesn't mean it not obsolete.
Seriously, use HTML5, that's the industry standard nowadays.

I know you like twell-formedness of XML better but you can write HTML5 well-formed too. For example instead of <br> write <br />.

Oh, and don't get me started on framesets. No one uses them anymore (except you).
Seriously, use HTML5, that's the industry standard nowadays.

you can write HTML5 well-formed too. For example instead of <br> write <br />.

The <br> tag does not use and does not need a closing slash and never has in any HTML specification nor for any other HTML tag. While it's allowed for backwards compatibility related to XHTML from past misgivings, it has no meaning, it does nothing, and browsers are instructed to ignore it.
I was a big advocate for using XHTML and XML. It's funny how, in the past, so many put it down but, today, most frameworks use it in a similar fashion.
Yeah, when it comes to enforcement of XML/XHTML/HTML5 structures, 'intelligent completion' feature really helps with keeping track. On a reasonably complex page, it's easy to get lost if you code it up by hand. So I'd say this is where the more automation, the better.

Deleted member 30996

The only editors I've ever used to write any markup language are NotePad and LeafPad. I don't need anything that highlights syntax.

If you search wayback machine for I have a blog post where I said I updated the site to XHTML 1.0 Strict in 2003 or so.

It's not that I can't write it, it's that I don't have to please anyone but W3C and myself. The only thing I care about is that it checks valid and won't put anything up that isn't. From there on, it's how I can do it easiest and quickest.


I have #1 Google ranking back for my site like before I shut it down and my post here is ranked #3. That's what matters and I worked to get it back.

I'm ahead of the in Ranking on setting up a desktop. Cooltrainer gave up and stop updating at FreeBSD 11.

Who's obsolete? And what is your Rank?
You can have a wall of solid text/code that can get validated by an XML parser/validator, but with that, good luck finding just the place to edit if you don't like the appearance of the page generated by that text/code.

Deleted member 30996


How old are you anyway? Mid-30's? Tops.

I've been writing markup by hand 22 years. I'm just trying to get an idea what teat you were hanging on then.
Since XHTML 1.0 Transitional includes presentational elements (such as center, font and strike, etc.), this implies it's obsolete.
You are obsolete. I said so. Your presentation is repetitious and boring to the point of tedious.

I don't have a website so i don't care about ranks.
That's what I thought. That who can do. Those who can't criticize how those that can do it.

Until you have a website to show for all that talk, that's all it is. I don't care what you think about mine, the way I write it or if you like my "shitty" frames or not.

Now, is that plain enough to understand or do I need to detail it out for you again?
Ok, if you want to stick to an obsolete technology no one uses anymore, do it. 👍
I don't care. I just wanted to help.

I am as old as dirt and i write HTML by hand a bit longer than you. And i don't need a website to know what i am talking about. I studied that stuff in a university and worked as a web developer my entire life.

I promise i won't talk to you about this topic again. Peace.