w3c

I came across this interesting header: Content-Type: charset=utf-8 Set HTTP header to UTF-8 using PHP The answerer says that this syntax is defined by RFC 2616 , but I am not seeing it in the provided link. Is this valid syntax, and if so where specifically is this defined? The production in RFC 2616 for the Content-Type header is this: Content-Type = "Content-Type" ":" media-type And the media-type production is this: media-type = type "/" subtype *( ";" parameter ) type = token subtype = token That says that while the parameter part (e.g., charset=utf-8 is optional, the type "/" subtype part

XRX means an application where the front end is written entirely in XML dialects and the back end is written entirely in XML dialects and data is passed between them as XML over REST. Is it correct that this is the only web application stack that is composed solely of technologies maintained by the W3C? I think the best way to answer this is that XRX the only web architecture that I am aware of that incorporates two important web standards: XQuery and XForms, to create portable web applications. REST is not really a W3C standard per say, but an architectural style built around simple key-value

I have a xml file <Response> <StatusCode>0</StatusCode> <StatusDetail>OK</StatusDetail> <AccountInfo> <element1>value</element1> <element2>value</element2> <element3>value</element2> <elementN>value</elementN> </AccountInfo> </Response> And I want parse my elements in AccountInfo, but I dont know elements tag names. Now Im using and have this code for tests, but in future I will recieve more elemenets in AccountInfo and I dont know how many or there names String name=""; String balance=""; Node accountInfo = document.getElementsByTagName("AccountInfo").item(0); if (accountInfo.getNodeType() ==

In HTML 4.01 certain end tags are forbidden , that means it in not valid markup to have them, e.g.: Invalid Valid =================== ================= <BR/> <BR> <BR></BR> <IMG src="..."/> <IMG src="..."> <IMG ...></IMG> <INPUT ... /> <INPUT ...> <INPUT ...></INPUT> In the HTML 4.01 specification the indication of an end tag being optional or forbidden is nicely summarized in the index of elements : Name Start Tag End Tag AREA F BASE F BASEFONT F BODY O O BR F COL F COLGROUP O DD O DT O FRAME F HEAD O O HR F HTML O O IMG F INPUT F ISINDEX F LI O LINK F META F OPTION O P O PARAM F TBODY O O TD

I think most people agree that complying with W3C standards is a worthwhile pursuit. However, do you advertise the fact that your site is compliant? Are there positives or negatives to doing so? If you do display your compliance, how do you do it? I don't, because the average user has no knowledge of what it means for a website to "be valid". If someone who cares about such things is interested, they probably wouldn't take my word for it anyway - they'd run my site through the validator themselves, probably using a tool such as Firebug. guerda It depends on your audience. If it's a tech site,

This question already has answers here : Closed 8 years ago . Possible Duplicate: How important is W3C XHTML/CSS validation when finalizing work? I read about validation from many sources and most will say always validate your web page. It is important that your page validate. I understand the concept. But my site does not "validate", yet it works across every major browsers, does not produce errors in those browsers and looks correct in all browsers. This is an example of an error I get Error Line 38, Column 28: document type does not allow element "h3" here var $jsuccessmessage = "<h3>We

A few years ago we started playing around with XForms from the W3C for a web app which required hundreds of custom forms. As they aren't currently supported natively by the major browsers, what parsers/tools are you using on your projects today? I'm not really interested in plugins - this needs to be something server side that emulates XForms. Tambet We use XForms for creating user interfaces for SOAP-based web services. Currently we settled with Chiba XForms engine ( http://chiba.sourceforge.net/ ), but Orbeon ( http://www.orbeon.com/ ) actually seems more mature. Both are server-side engines