469,291 Members | 1,717 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,291 developers. It's quick & easy.

Massive HTML coding errors

The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?
Apr 14 '06 #1
78 4418
In article <5R*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Robert Baer <ro********@earthlink.net> wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?


Your layout appears to be so simple that a competent HTML markup
specialist would probably do the site for less than the cost of
Dreamweaver. The lava looking image bangs into your PDF links in Safari.
Your markup is far too complicated for the site I saw.
I may be missing something.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
Apr 14 '06 #2
Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
In article <5R*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Robert Baer <ro********@earthlink.net> wrote:

The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?

Your layout appears to be so simple that a competent HTML markup
specialist would probably do the site for less than the cost of
Dreamweaver. The lava looking image bangs into your PDF links in Safari.
Your markup is far too complicated for the site I saw.
I may be missing something.

leo

Yes, the image is a bit close to the PDF links, and i can move it for
better spacing; that is a good idea -->thanks!
So you are saying that there is too much code for the effect seen?
That means there should be a more efficent way of creating that effect.
As far as DreamWeaver goes, i cannot afford even the free 30 day
trial, as i am on POTS and downloading anything larger than 2Megs gets
bitchy - even with a download manager.
Downloading it is simply not possible for me.
I have the various M$ products that supposedly are HTML tools, but
they are piggy as hell and the created code is very piggy and obscure,
so i un-installed the crap.
Apr 14 '06 #3
Robert Baer wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?

You have tags without closing delimiters, and you keep using the same id
attribute over and over. (The id is meant to be unique, hence the name
"id". You probably want to be using the class attribute.)
Apr 14 '06 #4

Try this as most people find it easier to use and understand:
http://onlinewebcheck.com/?url=oil4lessllc.com/

It seems like a few small "fixings" would do a great deal to improve the
validation issues.

--
Albert Wiersch
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Robert Baer" <ro********@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5R*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so incompetent,
i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?

Apr 14 '06 #5
Robert Baer wrote:
Yes, the image is a bit close to the PDF links, and i can move it for
better spacing; that is a good idea -->thanks!
So you are saying that there is too much code for the effect seen?
That means there should be a more efficent way of creating that effect.
As far as DreamWeaver goes, i cannot afford even the free 30 day
trial, as i am on POTS and downloading anything larger than 2Megs gets
bitchy - even with a download manager.
I think you would do much better to check out some good HTML tutorials
and work on hand-coding. Use an editor with syntax highlighting and
you'll find it a lot easier to see what's going on. (Personally, I like
Crimson Editor - http://www.crimsoneditor.com)

Front Page will render a disaster of HTML. Dreamweaver does better, but
it still isn't all that clean, from what I understand. Most of the tools
like that I've ever seen make a mess of the HTML.
Downloading it is simply not possible for me.
I have the various M$ products that supposedly are HTML tools, but
they are piggy as hell and the created code is very piggy and obscure,
so i un-installed the crap.


Good :)
Apr 14 '06 #6
In article <5R*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Robert Baer <ro********@earthlink.net> wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?


No. This is such a simple page to hand-code. Try that, with
header, paragraph, and list tags, and then style the tags. That's
all you need. The page source at your site is an absolute mess. It
also misuses the "id" attribute; IDs are supposed to be unique.

For example, the following code will serve as markup for your site,
it validates HTML 4.01 Strict, and it's a lot simpler than what
you have. All you need to do is add some style classes to various
elements, which I have started for you:

----------------------------------------------------------------

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Oil 4 Less LLC</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
h1 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; }
h2 { font-weight: normal; }
.biggertext { font-size: large; }
.contact { text-align: center; }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Oil 4 Less LLC</h1>

<p><span class="biggertext">Efficently lift oil, sand and
water with our pump...</span><br>
.... at less than one-fifth the cost of a traditional pump.</p>

<p>Our pump may make shallow low pressure gas wells profitable by
removing the water, thus preventing drowning.</p>

<h2>PRODUCTS:</h2>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/ExecSumm.pdf">Enhanced Lifter
(E.L.) Pump</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.logwell.com/products/Codatron_Corotron.html">Codatron
(TM) shunt HV regulator</a></li>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/CodatronHT.pdf">Codatron HT (TM)
shunt HV regulator</a></li>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/CCL4HT.pdf">High gain CCL
amplifier</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>Patent references:</h2>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/6222350.PDF">Mosley</a> (Titan's
HV regulator)</li>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/HVREGPAT2.pdf">Improved
clones</a> (public domain)</li>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/HVREGPAT1.PDF">Codatron
design</a> (public domain)</li>
</ul>

<p><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/Temps.pdf">Temperature chart</a></p>

<p class="bigcentertext">It gets *hot* down there!</p>

<p> class="bigcentertext">Use our Codatron HT (TM) shunt regulator
to replace the Corotron(TM)</p>

<hr>

<p class="contact">Contact us: <a
href="http://oil4lessllc.com/ad*****@example.com">ad*****@example.com</a></p>

</body>
</html>

--
-A
Apr 14 '06 #7
Robert Baer wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all. It does need quite a bit of work!

The layout that you have is extremely simple, and the code should
reflect that; at present, it doesn't. It also has quite a bit going on
that a validator wouldn't comment on, but that needs looking at.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?

Forking out for Dreamweaver would be a complete waste of money for such
a small site; you'll find your time/money much better spent using
something as simple as Notepad.

Anyway, here's some tips that should help:

1. The DTD at the top of your HTML code is invalid! It's supposed to
tell browsers (and validators) what "flavour" of HTML you're using;
because it's invalid, they have to guess and make kludges. Get rid of
the one you've got, and replace it with:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
You will find initially that this increases the number of errors that a
validator finds, but that's a good thing; if you don't know there's a
problem, you can't fix it!

2. When I access your site using Firefox it tells me that I need to
have Quicktime installed. I can't imagine what the Quicktime file adds
to your site, but you need to seriously consider a different approach.
Relatively few PCs have Quicktime installed, and it's a fairly safe bet
that most of the ones that don't are used by people who won't know how
to install it, or won't be interested in doing so. Don't create
barriers for your customers!

3. Your HTML is littered with absolute positioning, and width and
height dimensions measured in pixels, all of which should be got rid
of. You have no real control over what browser your customer uses,
what size screen they have, what size they have their browser window
at, or what size font they prefer to read things at; all of these will
conspire to make your site look ugly or even unusable (with one block
of text overlaying another). About the only dimensions you need are
those for your images, and a width of, say, 50% for the div that starts
on screen with "PRODUCTS:".

4. As someone else has commented on, you have three div tags without a
closing ">".

5. As has also been commented on by someone else, you've declared the
same id attribute in more than one place. If you need to have two
different HTML elements with the same CSS, then you need to use a
class, not an id. In crude terms the only practical difference between
the two is that when you define the style in the CSS, you precede the
class name with a period rather than a pound sign.

6. You've also got way too many divs and ids, and also a number of
wholly redundant span tags; these are one reason why the code looks so
complicated to you, and also means that there's more places for you to
make mistakes. You really need very few divs for such a simple design;
here's what I'd do:
a. Everything from "Oil 4 Less LLC" to "drowning." would be one div.
b. "PRODUCTS" to "Temperature chart" would be the next div.
c. The next div would contain the volcano picture, the ROHS logo, and
the text from "It gets" to "Corotron(TM)".
d. The fourth and final div would contain the "O4Lstamp.gif" image and
the e-mail link.
As simple as that! You'll need "float: left" as part of the style for
the middle two divs so that they don't stack up one on top of the
other. You'll find that almost all of the necessary styling can then
be done by simply defining styles for generic HTML tags; starting with
wrapping the company name with an <h1> tag at the very top. And keep
all of the CSS definitions within the <style> element in the document
head; at the moment, you've got some up there and a great deal more
buried within the HTML itself. It'll make life a lot easier for you if
you only have to make changes in one place!

7. The two lists of links should really be coded as unordered lists.

8. You need to be more careful when defining "font-family". Google
for "web-safe fonts" and you'll realise that there are only a very few
fonts that you can be certain that all or most of your customers will
have. You also need to provide a list of "fallback" fonts, so that
your definition would look something like this:
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;

9. Your e-mail link is invalid. You need to change the HTML from
this:
href="sa***@oil4lessllc.com"
to this:
href="mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com"

In addition to all of the above regarding your coding, as a matter of
good netiquette you should explicitly state that most of your links are
to PDF documents, and ideally should provide a link to the relevant
page on Adobe's website so that Acrobat Reader can be installed if
necessary. Similarly, one link is to an external website, and should
be identified as such.

I ended up writing rather more than I'd intended! Hope it's of use...
--
AGw.

Apr 14 '06 #8
Robert Baer wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/

Incidentally, you also have a spelling mistake: "Efficently".

--
AGw.

Apr 14 '06 #9
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?


You have tags without closing delimiters, and you keep using the same id
attribute over and over. (The id is meant to be unique, hence the name
"id". You probably want to be using the class attribute.)

Know absolutely nothing about class atributes.
That code was generated about a year ago, mostly by using Netscape
4.7 composer - if i remember correctly.
Like i mentioned elsewhere, it seems that to create even half-way
reasonable HTML code, one cannot get that with tools not made to do that
in its native format (eg: word processors like Nerd or WordPerfet).
Netscape Composer seems to be in the same class.
Apr 15 '06 #10
Tony wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
Yes, the image is a bit close to the PDF links, and i can move it
for better spacing; that is a good idea -->thanks!
So you are saying that there is too much code for the effect seen?
That means there should be a more efficent way of creating that effect.
As far as DreamWeaver goes, i cannot afford even the free 30 day
trial, as i am on POTS and downloading anything larger than 2Megs gets
bitchy - even with a download manager.

I think you would do much better to check out some good HTML tutorials
and work on hand-coding. Use an editor with syntax highlighting and
you'll find it a lot easier to see what's going on. (Personally, I like
Crimson Editor - http://www.crimsoneditor.com)

Front Page will render a disaster of HTML. Dreamweaver does better, but
it still isn't all that clean, from what I understand. Most of the tools
like that I've ever seen make a mess of the HTML.
Downloading it is simply not possible for me.
I have the various M$ products that supposedly are HTML tools, but
they are piggy as hell and the created code is very piggy and obscure,
so i un-installed the crap.

Good :)

I agree on FrontPage; even i, with my zero knowledge of HTML could
tell that it is absolute garbage.
Apr 15 '06 #11
axlq wrote:
In article <5R*****************@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
Robert Baer <ro********@earthlink.net> wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?

No. This is such a simple page to hand-code. Try that, with
header, paragraph, and list tags, and then style the tags. That's
all you need. The page source at your site is an absolute mess. It
also misuses the "id" attribute; IDs are supposed to be unique.

For example, the following code will serve as markup for your site,
it validates HTML 4.01 Strict, and it's a lot simpler than what
you have. All you need to do is add some style classes to various
elements, which I have started for you:

----------------------------------------------------------------

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Oil 4 Less LLC</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
h1 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; }
h2 { font-weight: normal; }
.biggertext { font-size: large; }
.contact { text-align: center; }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Oil 4 Less LLC</h1>

<p><span class="biggertext">Efficently lift oil, sand and
water with our pump...</span><br>
... at less than one-fifth the cost of a traditional pump.</p>

<p>Our pump may make shallow low pressure gas wells profitable by
removing the water, thus preventing drowning.</p>

<h2>PRODUCTS:</h2>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/ExecSumm.pdf">Enhanced Lifter
(E.L.) Pump</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.logwell.com/products/Codatron_Corotron.html">Codatron
(TM) shunt HV regulator</a></li>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/CodatronHT.pdf">Codatron HT (TM)
shunt HV regulator</a></li>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/CCL4HT.pdf">High gain CCL
amplifier</a></li>
</ul>

<h2>Patent references:</h2>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/6222350.PDF">Mosley</a> (Titan's
HV regulator)</li>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/HVREGPAT2.pdf">Improved
clones</a> (public domain)</li>
<li><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/HVREGPAT1.PDF">Codatron
design</a> (public domain)</li>
</ul>

<p><a href="http://oil4lessllc.com/Temps.pdf">Temperature chart</a></p>

<p class="bigcentertext">It gets *hot* down there!</p>

<p> class="bigcentertext">Use our Codatron HT (TM) shunt regulator
to replace the Corotron(TM)</p>

<hr>

<p class="contact">Contact us: <a
href="http://oil4lessllc.com/ad*****@example.com">ad*****@example.com</a></p>

</body>
</html>

Thanks; will give it a try.
Apr 15 '06 #12
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Try this as most people find it easier to use and understand:
http://onlinewebcheck.com/?url=oil4lessllc.com/

It seems like a few small "fixings" would do a great deal to improve the
validation issues.

You used a different validator, and got more informative results.
Thanks!
Apr 15 '06 #13
fr*******@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/


Incidentally, you also have a spelling mistake: "Efficently".

Yup; saw that.
Apr 15 '06 #14
fr*******@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
It does need quite a bit of work!

The layout that you have is extremely simple, and the code should
reflect that; at present, it doesn't. It also has quite a bit going on
that a validator wouldn't comment on, but that needs looking at.

Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?


Forking out for Dreamweaver would be a complete waste of money for such
a small site; you'll find your time/money much better spent using
something as simple as Notepad.

Anyway, here's some tips that should help:

1. The DTD at the top of your HTML code is invalid! It's supposed to
tell browsers (and validators) what "flavour" of HTML you're using;
because it's invalid, they have to guess and make kludges. Get rid of
the one you've got, and replace it with:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
You will find initially that this increases the number of errors that a
validator finds, but that's a good thing; if you don't know there's a
problem, you can't fix it!

2. When I access your site using Firefox it tells me that I need to
have Quicktime installed. I can't imagine what the Quicktime file adds
to your site, but you need to seriously consider a different approach.
Relatively few PCs have Quicktime installed, and it's a fairly safe bet
that most of the ones that don't are used by people who won't know how
to install it, or won't be interested in doing so. Don't create
barriers for your customers!

** My guess is that the sound file is triggering that request for
QuickTime; it is a simple Midi file and any player will do - including
the one that comes with most GUI OSes.
I had a hell of a time finding any code that allowed the running of a
sound file, and i found only two ways mentioned; what you see inthe code
is the only way that worked.

3. Your HTML is littered with absolute positioning, and width and
height dimensions measured in pixels, all of which should be got rid
of. You have no real control over what browser your customer uses,
what size screen they have, what size they have their browser window
at, or what size font they prefer to read things at; all of these will
conspire to make your site look ugly or even unusable (with one block
of text overlaying another). About the only dimensions you need are
those for your images, and a width of, say, 50% for the div that starts
on screen with "PRODUCTS:". ** So if one does not define width and height, then the picture's
"native" pixel size rules?

4. As someone else has commented on, you have three div tags without a
closing ">".

5. As has also been commented on by someone else, you've declared the
same id attribute in more than one place. If you need to have two
different HTML elements with the same CSS, then you need to use a
class, not an id. In crude terms the only practical difference between
the two is that when you define the style in the CSS, you precede the
class name with a period rather than a pound sign.

6. You've also got way too many divs and ids, and also a number of
wholly redundant span tags; these are one reason why the code looks so
complicated to you, and also means that there's more places for you to
make mistakes. You really need very few divs for such a simple design;
here's what I'd do:
a. Everything from "Oil 4 Less LLC" to "drowning." would be one div.
b. "PRODUCTS" to "Temperature chart" would be the next div.
c. The next div would contain the volcano picture, the ROHS logo, and
the text from "It gets" to "Corotron(TM)".
d. The fourth and final div would contain the "O4Lstamp.gif" image and
the e-mail link.
As simple as that! You'll need "float: left" as part of the style for
the middle two divs so that they don't stack up one on top of the
other. You'll find that almost all of the necessary styling can then
be done by simply defining styles for generic HTML tags; starting with
wrapping the company name with an <h1> tag at the very top. And keep
all of the CSS definitions within the <style> element in the document
head; at the moment, you've got some up there and a great deal more
buried within the HTML itself. It'll make life a lot easier for you if
you only have to make changes in one place!

7. The two lists of links should really be coded as unordered lists.

8. You need to be more careful when defining "font-family". Google
for "web-safe fonts" and you'll realise that there are only a very few
fonts that you can be certain that all or most of your customers will
have. You also need to provide a list of "fallback" fonts, so that
your definition would look something like this:
font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif;

9. Your e-mail link is invalid. You need to change the HTML from
this:
href="sa***@oil4lessllc.com"
to this:
href="mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com" When i visied each sample you gave, the ersults wer the same
"mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com", so i do not see why it is invalid.

In addition to all of the above regarding your coding, as a matter of
good netiquette you should explicitly state that most of your links are
to PDF documents, and ideally should provide a link to the relevant
page on Adobe's website so that Acrobat Reader can be installed if
necessary. Similarly, one link is to an external website, and should
be identified as such. ** Thanks; did not know that.

I ended up writing rather more than I'd intended! Hope it's of use...

Apr 15 '06 #15
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Try this as most people find it easier to use and understand:
http://onlinewebcheck.com/?url=oil4lessllc.com/

It seems like a few small "fixings" would do a great deal to improve the
validation issues.

Thanks; now i have access to three validators!
Apr 15 '06 #16
since you are using css to layout your pages it makes no sense to have
all the following junk in the body tag. all that can be done in the
style sheet

<body bgcolor="#ffffff" link="#0000ff" vlink="#660099" text="#000000"
topmargin="0" leftmargin="0">

instead of hanging in forums asking what to do why not visit the
html/xhtml/css reference pages? half the people that give you advice in
forums never visited the reference pages either. be smart

best html reference http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_reference.asp
best style sheet reference
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp html links
http://www.websitetips.com/html/ style sheet links
http://www.websitetips.com/css/ html dom
http://www.w3schools.com/htmldom/dom_reference.asp

Apr 15 '06 #17
Robert Baer wrote:
That code was generated about a year ago, mostly by using Netscape
4.7 composer - if i remember correctly.


Ack! That thing's like ten years old!!
--
AGw.

Apr 15 '06 #18
Robert Baer wrote:
fr*******@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
2. When I access your site using Firefox it tells me that I need to
have Quicktime installed. I can't imagine what the Quicktime file adds
to your site, but you need to seriously consider a different approach.
Relatively few PCs have Quicktime installed, and it's a fairly safe bet
that most of the ones that don't are used by people who won't know how
to install it, or won't be interested in doing so. Don't create
barriers for your customers!

** My guess is that the sound file is triggering that request for
QuickTime; it is a simple Midi file and any player will do - including
the one that comes with most GUI OSes.
I had a hell of a time finding any code that allowed the running of a
sound file, and i found only two ways mentioned; what you see inthe code
is the only way that worked.


Except that it didn't! This is exactly the sort of thing that will
seem to work fine when testing it on one's own machine, but can
completely fail to work on someone else's!

Not to mention that you're assuming that your visitors are surfing with
the sound on... and what if they're surfing from work and don't want
the whole office to suddenly hear the sound of burners roaring away?!
3. Your HTML is littered with absolute positioning, and width and
height dimensions measured in pixels, all of which should be got rid
of. You have no real control over what browser your customer uses,
what size screen they have, what size they have their browser window
at, or what size font they prefer to read things at; all of these will
conspire to make your site look ugly or even unusable (with one block
of text overlaying another). About the only dimensions you need are
those for your images, and a width of, say, 50% for the div that starts
on screen with "PRODUCTS:".

** So if one does not define width and height, then the picture's
"native" pixel size rules?


Indeed. But you shouldn't use CSS to try to over-ride an image's true
size, if that's what you're hinting at. If the image file is, say,
118x83, then that's what your code should reflect. If that means that
the image is the wrong size on your page, then you need to edit the
image file.
9. Your e-mail link is invalid. You need to change the HTML from
this:
href="sa***@oil4lessllc.com"
to this:
href="mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com"

When i visied each sample you gave, the ersults wer the same
"mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com", so i do not see why it is invalid.


Okay, I was a bit sloppy with that one!

As coded, this:
href="sa***@oil4lessllc.com"
is telling your browser that the link goes to a page with named
"sa***@oil4lessllc.com", which is presumably not what you intend. I'd
imagine that what you actually intended was for someone clicking on the
link to fire up their e-mail client, ready to send you an e-mail; in
which case, the code should have been this:
href="mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com"

What I didn't mention, though, was that although this is technically
correct, it's problematical because it assumes that your visitor has an
e-mail client configured to respond to it. A much better solution, and
one that will shield your e-mail address from spam harvesters, is to
use a feedback form. If you have a Google around you'll find example
code that you can use, as well as some explanation of the additional
technical requirements that you'll need to deal with behind the scenes;
a bit more work, but it's all part of the learning process!

HTH...
--
AGw.

Apr 15 '06 #19
To further the education of mankind, fr*******@southernskies.co.uk
declaimed:
Robert Baer wrote:
That code was generated about a year ago, mostly by using Netscape
4.7 composer - if i remember correctly.


Ack! That thing's like ten years old!!


So is css. :)

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 15 '06 #20
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:00:14 -0400 Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:

| To further the education of mankind, fr*******@southernskies.co.uk
| declaimed:
|
|> Robert Baer wrote:
|>> That code was generated about a year ago, mostly by using Netscape
|>> 4.7 composer - if i remember correctly.
|>
|> Ack! That thing's like ten years old!!
|
| So is css. :)

So does that mean both need to be replaced?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 16 '06 #21
To further the education of mankind, ph**************@ipal.net
vouchsafed:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:00:14 -0400 Neredbojias
<http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote:

| To further the education of mankind, fr*******@southernskies.co.uk
| declaimed:
|
|> Robert Baer wrote:
|>> That code was generated about a year ago, mostly by using
|>> Netscape
|>> 4.7 composer - if i remember correctly.
|>
|> Ack! That thing's like ten years old!!
|
| So is css. :)

So does that mean both need to be replaced?


Css definitely has issues that need to be addressed.

And, if it were up to me, yes, I'd replace it. I never did like the
foundations upon which it is based in the first place. At a minimum, it is
over-complicated, somewhat convoluted, and often vague.

Nevertheless, the web community needs some standard and I do support, use,
and recommend css without hesitation. It _is_ better than what came before
in the sense of a uniform method to accomplish things. It's unlikely to be
replaced in any case, and the years _should_ improve it (...I keep telling
myself.)

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 16 '06 #22
dw************@gmail.com wrote:
since you are using css to layout your pages it makes no sense to have
all the following junk in the body tag. all that can be done in the
style sheet

<body bgcolor="#ffffff" link="#0000ff" vlink="#660099" text="#000000"
topmargin="0" leftmargin="0">

instead of hanging in forums asking what to do why not visit the
html/xhtml/css reference pages? half the people that give you advice in
forums never visited the reference pages either. be smart

best html reference http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_reference.asp
best style sheet reference
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp html links
http://www.websitetips.com/html/ style sheet links
http://www.websitetips.com/css/ html dom
http://www.w3schools.com/htmldom/dom_reference.asp

Looks like a rather comprehensive list.
thanks; now in my bookmarks to look and erad at my leisure.
Apr 16 '06 #23
fr*******@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
fr*******@southernskies.co.uk wrote:
2. When I access your site using Firefox it tells me that I need to
have Quicktime installed. I can't imagine what the Quicktime file adds
to your site, but you need to seriously consider a different approach.
Relatively few PCs have Quicktime installed, and it's a fairly safe bet
that most of the ones that don't are used by people who won't know how
to install it, or won't be interested in doing so. Don't create
barriers for your customers!


** My guess is that the sound file is triggering that request for
QuickTime; it is a simple Midi file and any player will do - including
the one that comes with most GUI OSes.
I had a hell of a time finding any code that allowed the running of a
sound file, and i found only two ways mentioned; what you see inthe code
is the only way that worked.

Except that it didn't! This is exactly the sort of thing that will
seem to work fine when testing it on one's own machine, but can
completely fail to work on someone else's!

Not to mention that you're assuming that your visitors are surfing with
the sound on... and what if they're surfing from work and don't want
the whole office to suddenly hear the sound of burners roaring away?!

3. Your HTML is littered with absolute positioning, and width and
height dimensions measured in pixels, all of which should be got rid
of. You have no real control over what browser your customer uses,
what size screen they have, what size they have their browser window
at, or what size font they prefer to read things at; all of these will
conspire to make your site look ugly or even unusable (with one block
of text overlaying another). About the only dimensions you need are
those for your images, and a width of, say, 50% for the div that starts
on screen with "PRODUCTS:".


** So if one does not define width and height, then the picture's
"native" pixel size rules?

Indeed. But you shouldn't use CSS to try to over-ride an image's true
size, if that's what you're hinting at. If the image file is, say,
118x83, then that's what your code should reflect. If that means that
the image is the wrong size on your page, then you need to edit the
image file.

9. Your e-mail link is invalid. You need to change the HTML from
this:
href="sa***@oil4lessllc.com"
to this:
href="mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com"


When i visied each sample you gave, the ersults wer the same
"mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com", so i do not see why it is invalid.

Okay, I was a bit sloppy with that one!

As coded, this:
href="sa***@oil4lessllc.com"
is telling your browser that the link goes to a page with named
"sa***@oil4lessllc.com", which is presumably not what you intend. I'd
imagine that what you actually intended was for someone clicking on the
link to fire up their e-mail client, ready to send you an e-mail; in
which case, the code should have been this:
href="mailto:sa***@oil4lessllc.com"

What I didn't mention, though, was that although this is technically
correct, it's problematical because it assumes that your visitor has an
e-mail client configured to respond to it. A much better solution, and
one that will shield your e-mail address from spam harvesters, is to
use a feedback form. If you have a Google around you'll find example
code that you can use, as well as some explanation of the additional
technical requirements that you'll need to deal with behind the scenes;
a bit more work, but it's all part of the learning process!

HTH...

Thanks.
From the various suggestions, i have made a radical change to the
code for the homepage.
It passes the CSE HTML validator Lite ver 7.01, but gives 10 errors
on the http://validator.w3.org/ site.
Five of those errors are related to the sound.
Not too sure what to do about the other 5.
Positioning of the lava pic and ROHS pic were bitchy and it was not
possible to make it look like i wanted.
I wound up making one picture that contained both, giving the
composite the "right" attribute for positioning.
I am being picky here, but i do not like all of that vertical whitespace.
At least the use of "absolute" allowed precice placement of everything.
Now it all seems to float around like a lost ship.
Apr 16 '06 #24
JRS: In article <11**********************@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>
, dated Sat, 15 Apr 2006 10:54:08 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.
www.authoring.html, fr*******@southernskies.co.uk posted :

What I didn't mention, though, was that although this is technically
correct, it's problematical because it assumes that your visitor has an
e-mail client configured to respond to it. A much better solution, and
one that will shield your e-mail address from spam harvesters, is to
use a feedback form. If you have a Google around you'll find example
code that you can use, as well as some explanation of the additional
technical requirements that you'll need to deal with behind the scenes;
a bit more work, but it's all part of the learning process!


However, you may be able to use a disposable E-mail address for the
initial contact, as I do for Reply-To here.

For users who prefer to use their E-mail system for filing
correspondence, it's much more friendly to provide an E-mail address;
and mailto: is often configured to work. So provide a disposable
address in human-readable form for copy'n'paste, and maybe a mailto:
(each with the usual cloaking so that some harvesters may miss it; and
provide a form as well for those who may prefer it.

Providing mailto: does NOT assume that the visitor has a response
configured.

Providing only mailto: does assume that the visitor either has a
response configured, or has the intelligence to transfer the address.

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Apr 16 '06 #25
Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <11**********************@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>
, dated Sat, 15 Apr 2006 10:54:08 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.
www.authoring.html, fr*******@southernskies.co.uk posted :
What I didn't mention, though, was that although this is technically
correct, it's problematical because it assumes that your visitor has an
e-mail client configured to respond to it. A much better solution, and
one that will shield your e-mail address from spam harvesters, is to
use a feedback form. If you have a Google around you'll find example
code that you can use, as well as some explanation of the additional
technical requirements that you'll need to deal with behind the scenes;
a bit more work, but it's all part of the learning process!

However, you may be able to use a disposable E-mail address for the
initial contact, as I do for Reply-To here.

For users who prefer to use their E-mail system for filing
correspondence, it's much more friendly to provide an E-mail address;
and mailto: is often configured to work. So provide a disposable
address in human-readable form for copy'n'paste, and maybe a mailto:
(each with the usual cloaking so that some harvesters may miss it; and
provide a form as well for those who may prefer it.

Providing mailto: does NOT assume that the visitor has a response
configured.

Providing only mailto: does assume that the visitor either has a
response configured, or has the intelligence to transfer the address.

The problems i see with a disposable address is that one has to
constantly change them while the incoming spam does not seem to decrease
much.
Furthermore, one has to go thru the hassle of changing the website
and creating yet another address.
Apr 17 '06 #26
Dr John Stockton wrote:
However, you may be able to use a disposable E-mail address for the
initial contact, as I do for Reply-To here.
True enough, I've done the same myself for a number of years now. To
wander a little off-topic, it's a useful defence to have when you
yourself have to provide an e-mail address to a web server. Even if
you have no qualms about the integrity of the other party, we all know
how woeful the state of security has proved to be in some places...
For users who prefer to use their E-mail system for filing
correspondence, it's much more friendly to provide an E-mail address;
and mailto: is often configured to work. So provide a disposable
address in human-readable form for copy'n'paste, and maybe a mailto:
(each with the usual cloaking so that some harvesters may miss it; and
provide a form as well for those who may prefer it.


I'm not sure if a compromise method is the best or worst of both
worlds! But certainly the mistake made by far too many websites of not
having an explicitly stated address, be it for e-mail or a street
address, should be avoided.

It might be sensible to less obvious e-mail address published on the
website. Spammers have an annoying habit of generating guesses for
addresses, as shown by the messages that I get for "sales", which I've
never used. Avoiding "info" also seems to be a wise move. Perhaps
doing this only makes a small dent in the problem, but I think every
little helps.
--
AGw.

Apr 17 '06 #27
Robert Baer wrote:
The problems i see with a disposable address is that one has to
constantly change them while the incoming spam does not seem to decrease
much.
Furthermore, one has to go thru the hassle of changing the website
and creating yet another address.


Hassle?! Thirty seconds' work at most!
--
AGw.

Apr 17 '06 #28

Robert Baer wrote:
The homepage i have had up and seemingly working is:
http://oil4lessllc.com/
However, the validator has so many complaints, and being so
incompetent, i have no clue as to how to fix it all.
Would the use of Dreamweaver be of great help?


Learn HTML/XHTML & CSS - Learn to write your own pages by hand it's
easy.

FREE! Online Courses:
A) Webonkey HTML Tutorial http://www.webmonkey.com/
B) W3schools http://www.w3schools.com/
C) Watch it done in a flash movie http://visualtutorials.com/
D) Free Web Site Courses
http://certification.about.com/cs/te.../tutorials.htm

Reference:
A) The best HTML/XHTML reference
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_reference.asp
B) The best Style Sheet Reference
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp
C) HTML Dom http://www.w3schools.com/htmldom/dom_reference.asp'

Links:
A) HTML Links http://www.websitetips.com/html/
B) Style Sheet Links http://www.websitetips.com/css/
ALWAYS CHECK THE REFERENCE PAGES TO MAKE CERTAIN YOU ARE WRITING YOUR
SOURCE CODE THE CORRECT WAY! JUST BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME SOURCE CODE
WRITTEN A PARTICULAR WAY IN SOMEONE ELSE'S PAGE DOESN'T MEAN THEY WROTE
IT CORRECTLY. MORE OFTEN THAN NOT YOU'LL FIND THAT THEY DIDN'T WRITE IT
CORRECTLY. BUT LOOKING AT OTHER PEOPLE'S SOURCE CODE IS STILL A GOOD
WAY TO LEARN. IF SOURCE CODE ISN'T WRITTEN THE CORRECT WAY IT CAN CAUSE
OBJECTS TO BE DISPLAYED IN PLACES YOU DON"T WANT THEM IN OR EVEN CRASH
SOMEONE'S BROWSER. NETSCAPOE 4.X USERS ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE TO
CRASHING. MOST OF THE TIME BROWSERS A VERY FORGIVING WHEN IT COMES TO
BAD SOURCE CODE. BUT WHY TAKE CHANCES. THE MORE CORRECTLY YOU WRITE
YOUR PAGES THE MOER BROWSERS THEY WILL WORK WITH.

Paid Online Courses:
http://www.hwg.org/

FREE! HTML/XHTML Editor:
http://www.chami.com/html-kit/

FREE! FTP Clients (applications):
http://www.trustmeher.net/freeware/cute.htm

When FTPing files from your computer to your online account send text
files, HTML/XHTML files, CSS files in the ascii mode. Send image files,
movie files, music files in the binary mode. There is an automatic mode
that is supposed to detect the type of file you are sending. But it
isn't always reliable.

*** HERE IS HOW I LEARNED HTML/XHTML/CSS ***

When you come to a page on the web click "VIEW" at the top of your
browser and click on "SOURCE". If you are using Internet Explorer
browser the HTML source code will open up in Windows Notepad. In
Notepad click on "FILE/SAVE AS" to save the page's source code to your
hard drive. In Internet Explorer click on "FILE/OPEN" to open the
source code in the browser. Go back to notepad and remove some of the
code and click "SAVE". Then in Internet Explorer hold down the "SHIFT"
key and click on the "REFRESH" button on the browser's toolbar to see
what effect the removed source code had on the page. You will learn a
hundred times faster this way.

Something to think about later is.......After you have gotten a little
experience with HTML try DOCTYPE, XHTML, and CSS. Then try to validate
your pages. Validating checks your source code for coding errors.
validating will not work unless you are using the correct doctype and
the correct document encoding. Validating is not something a newcomer
should bother with. Being new you will make lots of mistakes and won't
know how to fix them yet. http://validator.w3.org/

Many libraries world-wide have books related to the Internet, Web and
computers in general. They also have CDs and DVDs. Go to your local
public library and get the username and password for
http://www.firstsearch.org/ You have to get them at your library
because that is where you will pick up and return the books after
reading them. You can look up the book yourself but they will have to
order it for you. Sometimes this can take awhile if the book is checked
out by someone else. After reading the books and making copies of
certain pages with a photo copier simply return it to them.

By using Firstsearch you can search for any book in the world. Some
libraries might charge a small fee but most are free. Even if they
charge a fee it will be less than the cost of the book or other item
you are ordering. Every Web Design book I have read was acquired in
this fashion. :)

Apr 17 '06 #29
Robert Baer wrote:

It passes the CSE HTML validator Lite ver 7.01, but gives 10 errors
on the http://validator.w3.org/ site.


That's because CSE is *not* a validator. It is highly unlikely that it
will ever give the same results as W3C. If it does, it's completely by
accident.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Apr 18 '06 #30
kchayka wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:

It passes the CSE HTML validator Lite ver 7.01, but gives 10 errors
on the http://validator.w3.org/ site.

That's because CSE is *not* a validator. It is highly unlikely that it
will ever give the same results as W3C. If it does, it's completely by
accident.

It appeared to be advertised as a validator, and it seems to do a
reasonable job.
Please explain.
Apr 18 '06 #31

Hi Robert,

Yes, CSE HTML Validator does an excellent job. However, you will find that
some people don't like it because it is not a "real" DTD based validator.
They think the only programs that should be called validators are DTD based
validators. They go by only the strict, technical definition of "HTML
validator", and they will bash and trash-talk any program that doesn't fit
their strict technical definition of HTML Validator, even if it's
tremendously useful.

The good thing about validators/checkers that are not based on DTDs is that
they are able to find problems that a "real" DTD based validator can't, thus
making them MUCH MORE USEFUL in many ways. They can provide helpful advice
and tips, and can be much more helpful. Some (like CSE HTML Validator) can
check CSS, spelling, and accessibility, all quickly and easily. Furthermore,
many of them can be configured to a much greater degree according to what
the web developer wants. As for the problems "real" validators miss like the
W3C HTML Validator, see
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

While real DTD based validators can certainly be helpful, there are other
checkers that can be just as, if not more useful. They can be used with a
real validator if the end user so desires. So while someone can use our
product, they certainly aren't limited to using it. There are other tools
available too that provide useful checks, like HTML Tidy, which some people
like. But I can say that thousands of people use and like the high level
degree of syntax checking that CSE HTML Validator provides. For many, it
makes checking pages a lot better and easier and it finds more problems.

There's a misbelief is some groups that people should ONLY use a real
validator because that's the only "good" way to check a document. That is
completely false! A real validator can be helpful, but it is by no means
proof that a document is problem-free. There are many HTML and real-world
issues that a real validator will completely ignore and is incapable of
checking for. See the above link for examples.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
"Robert Baer" <ro********@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_%***********@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.ne t...
kchayka wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
It passes the CSE HTML validator Lite ver 7.01, but gives 10 errors on
the http://validator.w3.org/ site.

That's because CSE is *not* a validator. It is highly unlikely that it
will ever give the same results as W3C. If it does, it's completely by
accident.

It appeared to be advertised as a validator, and it seems to do a
reasonable job.
Please explain.

Apr 18 '06 #32
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Some (like CSE HTML Validator) can check CSS, spelling, and accessibility,
all quickly and easily.


Everything in fact, except validity.
Which is handy, except when what you care about is validity.

Apr 18 '06 #33

Again, that is only in a strict technical definition of "validity". If all
you care about is technical validity, then use a "real" DTD based validator.
If you want your pages to be seen by real people using real browsers and
real user agents then it would be best not to limit oneself to only a DTD
based validator.

Furthermore, real browsers don't use real SGML parsers or they wouldn't be
able to display 95%+ of the pages out there (because they're not technically
valid)! Keep this in mind when using a "real" SGML/DTD based parser and
validator. Most people are writing their pages to be seen in the real world
and are more concerned about real world issues.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
"Andy Dingley" <di*****@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@u72g2000cwu.googlegr oups.com...
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Some (like CSE HTML Validator) can check CSS, spelling, and
accessibility,
all quickly and easily.


Everything in fact, except validity.
Which is handy, except when what you care about is validity.

Apr 18 '06 #34
Robert Baer wrote:
kchayka wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
It passes the CSE HTML validator Lite ver 7.01, but gives 10
errors on the http://validator.w3.org/ site.
That's because CSE is *not* a validator. It is highly unlikely that it
will ever give the same results as W3C. If it does, it's completely by
accident.

It appeared to be advertised as a validator,


Yes. It's a fraud, as is regularly pointed out here.

and it seems to do a reasonable job.


A "reasonable job", as in missing ten errors?

I have no opinion on whether it would be a worthwhile tool
in the html checker family with AccessValet, Tidy et al if it
were honestly advertised. But as things stand, it's snake-oil.

A validator, such as Page Valet, the WDG validator, or Validome,
would NOT have missed those ten errors (whatever they were),
though they might very well report them differently.

--
Nick Kew
Apr 18 '06 #35
Albert Wiersch wrote (and in the process snipped the context):
Again, that is only in a strict technical definition of "validity".
The remark to which he was indirectly replying was this one, by Robert Baer:
It appeared to be advertised as a validator, and it seems to do a
reasonable job. Please explain.


Really, this is a disgraceful way of carrying on, Mr. Wiersch. In the
first few pages of the first chapter of any decent book on XML, the
terms "well-formed" and "valid" will be defined, and it will be made
clear that an otherwise well-formed XML document can only be considered
valid or non-valid with respect to some DTD. When discussing XML, then,
the term "validity" is *always* a strict, technical term.

So why don't you stop whingeing about people criticising your product,
when what they are criticising is your repeated claim that it's a
validator? You just need to revise your publicity material and remove
the claim that it's a validator, or revise your product by adding to it
the ability to validate.

Mr. Baer's comment would of course have been unnecessary, had he
troubled to look back as much as one week in the archive of the list.
But it serves extremely well to show why you must revise your misleading
publicity material. To be quite honest, it's not so much misleading, as
simply mendacious.

--
Jack.
Apr 18 '06 #36

As I've said many times, we do not, and never did, claim that our product is
an SGML and DTD based validator. Not in our program and not on our website.
The vast majority of people wouldn't want such a product if they really knew
what it was and its limitations and they knew of better alternatives. That's
why we get virtually zero requests for the addition of a "real" validator.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
"Jack" <mr*********@nospam.jackpot.uk.net> wrote in message
news:e2*******************@news.demon.co.uk...
Albert Wiersch wrote (and in the process snipped the context):

So why don't you stop whingeing about people criticising your product,
when what they are criticising is your repeated claim that it's a
validator? You just need to revise your publicity material and remove
the claim that it's a validator, or revise your product by adding to it
the ability to validate.

--
Jack.

Apr 18 '06 #37

And, also as regularly pointed out, it is ridiculous to call it a fraud. As
I've said many times, we do not, and never did, claim that our product is an
SGML and DTD based validator. Not in our program and not on our website. The
vast majority of people wouldn't want such a product if they really knew
what it was and its limitations and they knew of better alternatives. That's
why we get virtually zero requests for the addition of a "real" validator.

CSE HTML Validator is able to find problems that a "real" DTD based
validator can't, thus making non-"real" validators MUCH MORE USEFUL in many
ways. They can provide helpful advice and tips, and can be much more
helpful. Some (like CSE HTML Validator) can check CSS, spelling, and
accessibility, all quickly and easily. Furthermore, many of them can be
configured to a much greater degree according to what the web developer
wants. As for the problems "real" validators miss like the W3C HTML
Validator, see
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

Also, look up the word "validator" in the dictionary and you'll see that the
word makes sense.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
"Nick Kew" <ni**@asgard.webthing.com> wrote in message
news:e3************@asgard.webthing.com...
Robert Baer wrote:

Yes. It's a fraud, as is regularly pointed out here.

--
Nick Kew

Apr 18 '06 #38
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Again, that is only in a strict technical definition of "validity".
That seems to be a funny way to look at it. "Valid" in this context *is*
a precise technical term. CSE's use of the word "validation" for all the
checks it performs other than DTD conformance is incorrect. I suspect
they're calling the product a "validator" because its a more impressive
word than "checker", and then they attempt to justify their use of the
word by pretending that the correct use of the term is too picky
somehow. In other words, they want their product to have the prestige
associated with the term "validator", and to that end, instead of
*making* it a validator, they attempt to mislead people about what
validation is.
If all
you care about is technical validity, then use a "real" DTD based validator.
If you want your pages to be seen by real people using real browsers and
real user agents then it would be best not to limit oneself to only a DTD
based validator.


Fine. So call the alternative what it is, which isn't a validator.
What's wrong with "checker" or "tuner" or "analyzer"?

Apr 18 '06 #39
Albert Wiersch wrote:
As I've said many times, we do not, and never did, claim that our product is
an SGML and DTD based validator.


In the context of HTML, a "validator" is an SGML/DTD-based validator.
The word "validator" is in the name of your product. Therefore, you are
making that claim.
Apr 18 '06 #40
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Harlan Messinger wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:
[blah blah blah]


Fine. So call the alternative what it is, which isn't a validator.
What's wrong with "checker" or "tuner" or "analyzer"?


.... or "wierscher". Let's call it a wierscher. ;-)

Apr 18 '06 #41
dw************@gmail.com wrote:
ALWAYS CHECK THE REFERENCE PAGES TO MAKE CERTAIN YOU ARE WRITING YOUR
SOURCE CODE THE CORRECT WAY!

[remainder snipped]

Could you please not shout!
--
AGw.

Apr 18 '06 #42

"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a************@individual.net...

That seems to be a funny way to look at it. "Valid" in this context *is* a
precise technical term. CSE's use of the word "validation" for all the
checks it performs other than DTD conformance is incorrect. I suspect
they're calling the product a "validator" because its a more impressive
word than "checker", and then they attempt to justify their use of the
word by pretending that the correct use of the term is too picky somehow.
In other words, they want their product to have the prestige associated
with the term "validator", and to that end, instead of *making* it a
validator, they attempt to mislead people about what validation is.
I understand the meaning of the word validator as you say, but the common
usage of validator is not the strict, technical, HTML context one. The
common meaning of validator is the definition we use.

I believe it is misleading to give "real" validators so much prestige. You'd
think with all the talk about how great they are and that you should always
use one, that they could find the most problems, but they can't and they
don't.
Fine. So call the alternative what it is, which isn't a validator. What's
wrong with "checker" or "tuner" or "analyzer"?


Because CSE HTML Validator is the name of the product as it has been for
over 9 years. It is the type of program 99% of people want when they look
for an "HTML validator". It is an "HTML validator" for the vast majority of
people, and it is a validator in the common usage of the word.

--
Albert Wiersch
Fix your website: http://onlinewebcheck.com
Apr 18 '06 #43
Albert Wiersch wrote:
As I've said many times, we do not, and never did, claim that our
product is an SGML and DTD based validator. Not in our program and
not on our website.
You don't need to, for confusion to be engendered; the fact remains that
in an XML context a validator *is* a DTD-based validator. You not only
claim that your product is such aa thing; you have even incorporated
that term into the name of your product. At best, this was a mistake.

I suspect that this last fact is the real reason for your refusal to
withdraw the claim, and your continued whingeing and prevarication.
However it would serve you better to just remain silent, if you won't
withdraw your claims; Google remembers your excuses, but it also
remembers everyone else's complaints.
The vast majority of people wouldn't want such a product if they
really knew what it was and its limitations and they knew of better
alternatives. That's why we get virtually zero requests for the
addition of a "real" validator.


That may be true of your customers; I can't speak for them. I doubt it's
a true thing to say of "the vast majority of people" in general, or more
paticularly of XML users. Anyway, you are evidently engendering
confusion, not least in the person of the (admittedly already confused)
Mr. Baer.

Even if you can't change the product-name, you should stop referring to
it as a "validator" in prose descriptions, and preferably make clear
that, despite its name, validating is specifically not among the things
that it does. You do *not* make this clear on your website. In fact you
make the implicit claim that validating *is* among your product's
capabilities, when you compare various versions of your product for
their "Validation speed"; one wonders what it is that you measured the
speed of, since it cannot have been validation that was being measured.
A more accurate table would have shown "N/A" in all columns.

--
Jack.

Apr 18 '06 #44
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Hi Robert,

Yes, CSE HTML Validator does an excellent job. However, you will find that
some people don't like it because it is not a "real" DTD based validator.
They think the only programs that should be called validators are DTD based
validators. They go by only the strict, technical definition of "HTML
validator", and they will bash and trash-talk any program that doesn't fit
their strict technical definition of HTML Validator, even if it's
tremendously useful.

The good thing about validators/checkers that are not based on DTDs is that
they are able to find problems that a "real" DTD based validator can't, thus
making them MUCH MORE USEFUL in many ways. They can provide helpful advice
and tips, and can be much more helpful. Some (like CSE HTML Validator) can
check CSS, spelling, and accessibility, all quickly and easily. Furthermore,
many of them can be configured to a much greater degree according to what
the web developer wants. As for the problems "real" validators miss like the
W3C HTML Validator, see
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval...eisbetter.html

While real DTD based validators can certainly be helpful, there are other
checkers that can be just as, if not more useful. They can be used with a
real validator if the end user so desires. So while someone can use our
product, they certainly aren't limited to using it. There are other tools
available too that provide useful checks, like HTML Tidy, which some people
like. But I can say that thousands of people use and like the high level
degree of syntax checking that CSE HTML Validator provides. For many, it
makes checking pages a lot better and easier and it finds more problems.

There's a misbelief is some groups that people should ONLY use a real
validator because that's the only "good" way to check a document. That is
completely false! A real validator can be helpful, but it is by no means
proof that a document is problem-free. There are many HTML and real-world
issues that a real validator will completely ignore and is incapable of
checking for. See the above link for examples.

I thank you for the reference; i learned some things about coding
when reading it.
What i like about the CSE HTML validator, is the speed and *local*
usability.
Once code i have generated passes CSE, then i run it thtu the W3C
validator, which at times finds errors.
But there is always the risk that the resulting code will not do what
you want...
Apr 18 '06 #45
Nick Kew wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:
kchayka wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:

It passes the CSE HTML validator Lite ver 7.01, but gives 10
errors on the http://validator.w3.org/ site.


That's because CSE is *not* a validator. It is highly unlikely that it
will ever give the same results as W3C. If it does, it's completely by
accident.

It appeared to be advertised as a validator,

Yes. It's a fraud, as is regularly pointed out here.

and it seems to do a
reasonable job.

A "reasonable job", as in missing ten errors?

I have no opinion on whether it would be a worthwhile tool
in the html checker family with AccessValet, Tidy et al if it
were honestly advertised. But as things stand, it's snake-oil.

A validator, such as Page Valet, the WDG validator, or Validome,
would NOT have missed those ten errors (whatever they were),
though they might very well report them differently.

Which of those three are best, or is it a good idea to use two of
themdue to differences?
Apr 18 '06 #46
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Someone else wrote (but Albert forgot to contextualise):

Yes. It's a fraud, as is regularly pointed out here.


And, also as regularly pointed out, it is ridiculous to call it a
fraud.


I said "mendacious", which means that I'm calling it a lie.

You are selling something by means of misleading advertising, which
means obtaining money by deception, which in turn is the definition of
"fraud".

You need to fix it, because it's illegal.

--
Jack.
Apr 18 '06 #47
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:
As I've said many times, we do not, and never did, claim that our
product is an SGML and DTD based validator.

In the context of HTML, a "validator" is an SGML/DTD-based validator.
The word "validator" is in the name of your product. Therefore, you are
making that claim.

Independent of the above "validator" issue, you have touched on a
practice that is very prevalent.
That is, the use of terms in a company name or product name that is
misleading or false or (possibly) outright fraud.
There are too many companies that do that, and i have not heard of
any lawsuit made to abate or correct the problems created.
Hell, the name that Micro$oft gave to its spreadsheet is a fraud;
back in the daze of DOS there were other spreadsheet programs that were
more flexible and useable - so where the &*#^$ did the M$ product "excel"?
In fact, in at least one aspect, there is (an old) DOS spreadsheet
program that can *still* run circles around the M$ program.
Apr 18 '06 #48
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a************@individual.net...
That seems to be a funny way to look at it. "Valid" in this context *is* a
precise technical term. CSE's use of the word "validation" for all the
checks it performs other than DTD conformance is incorrect. I suspect
they're calling the product a "validator" because its a more impressive
word than "checker", and then they attempt to justify their use of the
word by pretending that the correct use of the term is too picky somehow.
In other words, they want their product to have the prestige associated
with the term "validator", and to that end, instead of *making* it a
validator, they attempt to mislead people about what validation is.
I understand the meaning of the word validator as you say, but the common
usage of validator is not the strict, technical, HTML context one. The
common meaning of validator is the definition we use.


It's misleading to use a term with a broad common meaning in a context
in which the term has been assigned a more specific meaning. It defeats
the purpose of having terminology, which is to support precision.
I believe it is misleading to give "real" validators so much prestige.
Validators aren't given prestige. They are utilitarian. They do what
they do, and what they do is important.
You'd
think with all the talk about how great they are and that you should always
use one, that they could find the most problems, but they can't and they
don't.
That's like saying that if microwave ovens are so great then you'd think
they could be used to bake bread or brown a turkey. They do what they
do, and what they do is beneficial. That doesn't mean that you should
call a convection oven without microwaving capability a microwave oven
on the grounds that it does the things that a microwave oven "should" do
but can't.
Fine. So call the alternative what it is, which isn't a validator. What's
wrong with "checker" or "tuner" or "analyzer"?
Because CSE HTML Validator is the name of the product as it has been for
over 9 years.


If a product's name has been misleading for over nine years, then it's
OK that it's misleading?
It is the type of program 99% of people want when they look
for an "HTML validator".
That means that what they want *isn't* an HTML validator.
It is an "HTML validator" for the vast majority of people


No, it's a tool that performs a useful function, which isn't validating
HTML, vast majorities and their misconceptions (nurtured by you)
notwithstanding.
Apr 18 '06 #49
To further the education of mankind, "Albert Wiersch"
<do********@123donotreply123.com> vouchsafed:
Fine. So call the alternative what it is, which isn't a validator.
What's wrong with "checker" or "tuner" or "analyzer"?


Because CSE HTML Validator is the name of the product as it has been
for over 9 years. It is the type of program 99% of people want when
they look for an "HTML validator". It is an "HTML validator" for the
vast majority of people, and it is a validator in the common usage of
the word.


Why not call it the CSE Pre-Validator? You'd be throwing the w3c a bone,
as well as yourself.

Another option is Verifier. In the marketing arena, though, I think I like
Pre-Validator better.

I also considered something like "The CSE Vaporizor!! Vaporize your
mistakes at a stroke!" in the best Earl Scheib tradition. However, you may
prefer class over enthusiasm.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.
Apr 18 '06 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.