Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

HTML Closed Tags in Red


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Campo1988

Campo1988

  • Members
  • 46 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:15 PM

Posted 07 February 2016 - 07:27 PM

Hi, all.

 

I hope this is the correct area for this. My previous thread was moved, despite me not being in a business and it being an alternative programme I was using.

 

Anyway, I have some HTML code I would like someone to have a look at for me. It is telling me </BODY> and </HTML> are in error. I looked carefully and saw one of the blockquote tags is in red. I tried using paragraph tags inside this particular quote block to no avail. I also used "</BR>" and "< /BR>" which also didn't help. (Someone told me the space is required in the break tag, which doesn't make sense to me. It shows them in red, so I went back to using "<BR>" instead.)

<HTML>
    <HEAD>
        <TITLE>Rules</TITLE>
    </HEAD>
    <BODY>
        <CENTER><H1>Rules</H1></CENTER><BR>
        <BR>
        <P>These should be understood and followed while using this forum, and you can help to combat these:</P>
<BR>
<B>Trolling</B><BR>
<BR>
<I>Definition</I><BR>
<blockquote cite="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll">
a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.
</blockquote>
<BR><I>What to do</I><BR>
<P>Do not engage the troll in argument - "don't feed the troll". The more you 'feed' them the more hungry they grow, and the more you exacerbate the situation. Simply report them to a member of staff.</P><BR>
<BR>
<B>Spamming</B><BR>
<BR>
<I>Definition</I><BR>
<P>There are many types of spam, such as posting unwanted, unneeded, and irrelevant nonsense on any part of the forum. It can include advertising unrelated content (for example, explicit and malicious websites and software) and flooding.</P><BR>
<BR>
<blockquote cite="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming">the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited messages (spam), especially advertising, as well as sending messages repeatedly on the same site.</blockquote>
<BR>
<I>What to do</I><BR>
<P>Report any posts to a member of staff and do not visit any websites nor download any software they share.</P><BR>
<BR>
<B>Plagiarising/Quote Mining/Information Pirating</B><BR>
<BR>
<I>Definition</I><BR>
<P>Plagiarising is copying someone else's work or materials without their permission, sometimes a large amount of it, and claiming you are the author when you are not.</P><BR>
<BR>
<blockquote cite="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context">The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.<BR>
<BR>
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:<BR>
<BR>
<ol>
<li>As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
<li>As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
</ol>
<BR>
<BR>In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.</blockquote>
<BR>
<I>What to do</I><BR>
<P>Remind the poster politely that it is good practice to make sure that if they are quoting someone else that they make that clear, via the use of the quote tags, and preferably adding a link to that persons' article/website/blog/etc.</P><BR>
<BR>
<B>Spoofing</B><BR>
<BR>
<I>Definition</I><BR>
<P>A person who is pretending to be someone else, someone they are not. This might include using more than one account to avoid detection.</P><BR>
<BR>
<blockquote cite="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_attack">In the context of network security, a spoofing attack is a situation in which one person or program successfully masquerades as another by falsifying data, thereby gaining an illegitimate advantage.</blockquote>
<BR>
<I>What to do</I><BR>
<P>If you suspect someone of doing this, you can report them to a member of staff.</P>
    </BODY>
    </HTML>

The part of the code which is a problem for blockquote is

<blockquote cite="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context">The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential.<BR>
<BR>
Arguments based on this fallacy typically take two forms:<BR>
<BR>
<ol>
<li>As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
<li>As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
</ol>
<BR>
<BR>In either case, while quoting a person out of context can be done intentionally to advance an agenda or win an argument, it is also possible to remove essential context without the aim to mislead, through not perceiving a change in meaning or implication that may result from quoting what is perceived as the essential crux of a statement.</blockquote>

Is it simply because HTML is not able to be as advanced as BBCode to support lists? For whatever reason, </BODY> </HTML> and that particular </blockquote> are not showing up in red here.

 

Thanks.


Edited by Campo1988, 07 February 2016 - 07:29 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Smsec

Smsec

  • Members
  • 133 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:15 PM

Posted 07 February 2016 - 08:23 PM

Try adding this line at the very top of the page just before the opening HTML tag. This is a document type definition. The error may be caused because this is missing. The way it is now whatever is validating this html would assume it's HTML5. Some of the html tags in the document are no longer part of of the current HTML specification. Adding this statement tells the validator that the page is HTML 4.01.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

 There's a free HTML validator available at: https://validator.w3.org/check



#3 Campo1988

Campo1988
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 46 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:15 PM

Posted 08 February 2016 - 05:56 AM

Oh, thanks. However, the problem persists. Do I need to close that line you gave me?

That link is either broke or I expected to paste my HTML in a field for it to check but said field doesn't exist. (I think I'll go with the latter!) It just says "this document cannot be checked" - I didn't try validating/checking anything; I clicked the link and expected to paste my HTML in for it to check and it just said "this document cannot be checked" randomly.

 

Edit:

The site admin should make it more intuitive and say "please go to this page to check your HTML directly" instead of the extra nonsense.


Edited by Campo1988, 08 February 2016 - 05:58 AM.


#4 Campo1988

Campo1988
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 46 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:15 PM

Posted 08 February 2016 - 06:37 AM

I think I have fixed all the errors via that checker/validator, because it says there aren't any errors, yet I am still seeing the exact same red highlights for <blockquote>, </BODY>, and </HTML> as I was before. The changes are below:

<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<HTML lang="en">
    <HEAD>
        <meta charset="utf-8" />
     <style>
h1 {
    text-align: center;
}
         </style>
        <TITLE>Rules</TITLE>
    </HEAD>

The rest is all the same, so there isn't any point in pasting it again. As you can see, I used only "<!DOCTYPE HTML>" to keep it simple (well, simpler) for myself.

 

Do you think it's safe to just use it as it is, despite the other thing still complaining in red?

 

Thanks.



#5 Smsec

Smsec

  • Members
  • 133 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:15 PM

Posted 08 February 2016 - 10:51 AM

What program are you editing this HTML in? 

 

Post #3 -There's no closing tag needed for the DOCTYPE tag 

 

It's ok to use the: 

<!DOCTYPE HTML>

as long as the document validated as HTML5 on: https://validator.w3.org/check

 

Ideally, if HTML pages validate to the HTML specification, the browsers should render the page properly. However, all the browsers are pretty forgiving and often render pages so they look fine even with errors. The best way to tell if  the page will be ok is to test it in the three major browsers, IE, Firefox and Chrome. You can use a browser shot tool to see how it look in browsers from several different operating systems: https://www.browserstack.com/screenshots



#6 Campo1988

Campo1988
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 46 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:08:15 PM

Posted 08 February 2016 - 01:02 PM

Actually, it's an online widget editor on a free online forum site. It's called Custom Page Visual Editor. I am trying to follow instructions for a plug-in and it said to make a new page for it; I need to make sure the HTML is correct for the page first.

 



There's no closing tag needed for the DOCTYPE tag 

 

It's ok to use the: 

<!DOCTYPE HTML>

as long as the document validated as HTML5 on: https://validator.w3.org/check

Well, yeah, the validator says it's all OK.

 

 

Ideally, if HTML pages validate to the HTML specification, the browsers should render the page properly. However, all the browsers are pretty forgiving and often render pages so they look fine even with errors. The best way to tell if  the page will be ok is to test it in the three major browsers, IE, Firefox and Chrome. You can use a browser shot tool to see how it look in browsers from several different operating systems: https://www.browserstack.com/screenshots

Thanks. I'll try that.

 

In the meantime, I have an ordered list in there which is also not working.

<ol>
<li>As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
<li>As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
</ol>

I then edited to

<ol type="1">
<li>As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
<li>As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
</ol>
and it's still not listening to me. All it does is show each item as a separate paragraph without numbering and not indented, like this -
As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
when I know it should look something like this -
  • As a straw man argument, which is frequently found in politics, it involves quoting an opponent out of context in order to misrepresent their position (typically to make it seem more simplistic or extreme) in order to make it easier to refute.
  • As an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position.
which I can do extremely easily with "out-of-date" BBCode, which I can't do with "updated" HTML! :( Please help?! :)


#7 mylesjf

mylesjf

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:15 AM

Posted 20 September 2016 - 01:16 PM

.


Edited by mylesjf, 20 September 2016 - 02:27 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users