As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
local network.
I have downloaded, and installed CSE HTML Validator Pro,
but I don't get the same results with that as I do with the online
validator on W3.org. And I can't upload files to W3.org either,
due to all the ASP code I use.
So, the question is, where can I find a validator that validates
like the one on W3.org? (Windows 2000 server).
--
Torbjørn Pettersen
Editor/Webmaster
FantaFiction www.fantafiction.com
Jul 20 '05
195  8283 
"David Dorward" <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5*******************@news.demon.co.uk... Albert Wiersch wrote:
Of course, I'm not going to get into the "validator" name dispute as
that wouldn't do any good. But I would recommend that you trash the W3C too,
as you trash CSE HTML Validator, because they use the term "CSS Validator"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
Thanks, I see that Jukka is unhappy with the name "CSS Validator" (he says
it is misleading), but I don't see him bashing the W3C like he bashes CSE.
Seems quite unfair in my opinion. If you bash one, you ought to bash the
other in the same manner and magnitude.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m> wrote
in message news:08********************@august.net... As for adding a real validator, I'd certainly look into it if there was
demand for it ...
What there is, is a demand for are tools for finding problems (or potential
problems) in web pages. By not having a true validator, you are letting
some problems slip by ... thereby not meeting the demand as well as you
could ... and surely missing out on some sales.
I myself would be interested in a more comprehensive toolkit than what you
offer.
"Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m> wrote
in message news:08********************@august.net... As for adding a real validator, I'd certainly look into it if there was
demand for it ...
What there is, is a demand for are tools for finding problems (or potential
problems) in web pages. By not having a true validator, you are letting
some problems slip by ... thereby not meeting the demand as well as you
could ... and surely missing out on some sales.
I myself would be interested in a more comprehensive toolkit than what you
offer.
Albert Wiersch wrote: C A Upsdell wrote...
Albert Wiersch could enhance his product and avoid this kind of
controversy by making his product behave much the same as my old
Lint program: by adding true validation to his product, emitting
error messages for validation errors, and warning messages for
questionable code.
That's how CSE already works, but without the "real" validator.
In other words, that's not how CSE works, since C A Upsdell suggested
that you add a real validator.
BTW, why did you put "real" in quotes in your message? Does it mean you
don't really believe in real validators?
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Albert Wiersch wrote: C A Upsdell wrote...
Albert Wiersch could enhance his product and avoid this kind of
controversy by making his product behave much the same as my old
Lint program: by adding true validation to his product, emitting
error messages for validation errors, and warning messages for
questionable code.
That's how CSE already works, but without the "real" validator.
In other words, that's not how CSE works, since C A Upsdell suggested
that you add a real validator.
BTW, why did you put "real" in quotes in your message? Does it mean you
don't really believe in real validators?
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote in message
news:7d********************@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com... "Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote in message news:08********************@august.net...
What there is, is a demand for are tools for finding problems (or
potential problems) in web pages. By not having a true validator, you are letting
some problems slip by ... thereby not meeting the demand as well as you
could ... and surely missing out on some sales.
I myself would be interested in a more comprehensive toolkit than what you
offer.
Thanks. I appreciate your comments.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> wrote in message
news:7d********************@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com... "Albert Wiersch" <mr************************************@wiersch.co m>
wrote in message news:08********************@august.net...
What there is, is a demand for are tools for finding problems (or
potential problems) in web pages. By not having a true validator, you are letting
some problems slip by ... thereby not meeting the demand as well as you
could ... and surely missing out on some sales.
I myself would be interested in a more comprehensive toolkit than what you
offer.
Thanks. I appreciate your comments.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com... Albert Wiersch wrote:
BTW, why did you put "real" in quotes in your message? Does it mean you
don't really believe in real validators?
I should have said DTD validator to avoid the confusion.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com... Albert Wiersch wrote:
BTW, why did you put "real" in quotes in your message? Does it mean you
don't really believe in real validators?
I should have said DTD validator to avoid the confusion.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Albert Wiersch wrote: I should have said DTD validator to avoid the confusion.
Except that, in terms of SGML, there is no other kind.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Albert Wiersch wrote: I should have said DTD validator to avoid the confusion.
Except that, in terms of SGML, there is no other kind.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com... Albert Wiersch wrote:
W3C representatives aren't arguing in ciwah that the name "CSS
Validator" is appropriate. If they were, I've little doubt that they
would come under fire.
By using the name, aren't they saying that it's appropriate?
Anyway, I'm not arguing about it anymore. There's no point to it.
Thanks,
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com... Albert Wiersch wrote:
W3C representatives aren't arguing in ciwah that the name "CSS
Validator" is appropriate. If they were, I've little doubt that they
would come under fire.
By using the name, aren't they saying that it's appropriate?
Anyway, I'm not arguing about it anymore. There's no point to it.
Thanks,
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
> Brian wrote ... W3C representatives aren't arguing in ciwah that the name "CSS
Validator" is appropriate. If they were, I've little doubt that
they would come under fire.
[I actually wrote the quoted part above, though it does not appear that
way in your message. Please edit more carefully. Your postings make it
look like you said things that I said or the other way around.]
Albert Wiersch wrote:
By using the name, aren't they saying that it's appropriate?
They aren't saying it's appropriate *in ciwah*. If they were...
Anyway, I'm not arguing about it anymore.
We'll see.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
> Brian wrote ... W3C representatives aren't arguing in ciwah that the name "CSS
Validator" is appropriate. If they were, I've little doubt that
they would come under fire.
[I actually wrote the quoted part above, though it does not appear that
way in your message. Please edit more carefully. Your postings make it
look like you said things that I said or the other way around.]
Albert Wiersch wrote:
By using the name, aren't they saying that it's appropriate?
They aren't saying it's appropriate *in ciwah*. If they were...
Anyway, I'm not arguing about it anymore.
We'll see.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Albert Wiersch wrote: "Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com... Albert Wiersch wrote:
W3C representatives aren't arguing in ciwah that the name "CSS
Validator" is appropriate. If they were, I've little doubt that they
would come under fire.
By using the name, aren't they saying that it's appropriate?
CSS is not an SGML application, and makes no claim to being one. In
relation to CSS, the term "validation" is not pre-defined. What the
W3C validator does is to investigate the CSS syntax, and report errors
(which is what a validator does, in general terms), and optionally
offer warnings (which is no business of a validator as such, but is
nevertheless useful). It seems to me that the CSS thingy is primarily
a validator, and that its claim to be one does not clash with any
pre-defined specification of what a CSS validator should be.
So: it's a matter of personal taste (rather than of objective
definition) whether the term is appropriate.
In relation to HTML (starting with HTML2.0/RFC1866 - remember that?
- if you don't, at least some of us do) the term "validation" already
-had- a defined meaning, and was not open to marketing puffery.
Anyway, I'm not arguing about it anymore.
Didn't we already get to hear that before? The hole is getting
deeper.
There's no point to it.
Perhaps someone will bother to refer it under the Trades Description
Act.
Even Nick was willing to concede that it could be a useful tool, if
offered honestly for what it is: I say the same myself. As long as
you misrepresent it - despite your public admission that it's a lie,
with the implication that calling it a "validator" is a purely
marketing strategy to impress the gullible - we have no alternative
than to warn folks off it.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Albert Wiersch wrote: "Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com... Albert Wiersch wrote:
W3C representatives aren't arguing in ciwah that the name "CSS
Validator" is appropriate. If they were, I've little doubt that they
would come under fire.
By using the name, aren't they saying that it's appropriate?
CSS is not an SGML application, and makes no claim to being one. In
relation to CSS, the term "validation" is not pre-defined. What the
W3C validator does is to investigate the CSS syntax, and report errors
(which is what a validator does, in general terms), and optionally
offer warnings (which is no business of a validator as such, but is
nevertheless useful). It seems to me that the CSS thingy is primarily
a validator, and that its claim to be one does not clash with any
pre-defined specification of what a CSS validator should be.
So: it's a matter of personal taste (rather than of objective
definition) whether the term is appropriate.
In relation to HTML (starting with HTML2.0/RFC1866 - remember that?
- if you don't, at least some of us do) the term "validation" already
-had- a defined meaning, and was not open to marketing puffery.
Anyway, I'm not arguing about it anymore.
Didn't we already get to hear that before? The hole is getting
deeper.
There's no point to it.
Perhaps someone will bother to refer it under the Trades Description
Act.
Even Nick was willing to concede that it could be a useful tool, if
offered honestly for what it is: I say the same myself. As long as
you misrepresent it - despite your public admission that it's a lie,
with the implication that calling it a "validator" is a purely
marketing strategy to impress the gullible - we have no alternative
than to warn folks off it.
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:45:03 -0400, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: Albert Wiersch wrote:
I should have said DTD validator to avoid the confusion.
Except that, in terms of SGML, there is no other kind.
What passes as HTML on the web has, on average, very little to do with
SGML... Albert has a point here :)
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:45:03 -0400, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: Albert Wiersch wrote:
I should have said DTD validator to avoid the confusion.
Except that, in terms of SGML, there is no other kind.
What passes as HTML on the web has, on average, very little to do with
SGML... Albert has a point here :)
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk... CSS is not an SGML application, and makes no claim to being one. In
relation to CSS, the term "validation" is not pre-defined ...
Surely it would be possible to devise a strict grammar for CSS, in which
case software that identified syntax errors with respect to this grammar
could reasonably be called a validator.
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk... CSS is not an SGML application, and makes no claim to being one. In
relation to CSS, the term "validation" is not pre-defined ...
Surely it would be possible to devise a strict grammar for CSS, in which
case software that identified syntax errors with respect to this grammar
could reasonably be called a validator.
In article <FT******************@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.ro gers.com>,
"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> writes: CSS is not an SGML application, and makes no claim to being one. In
relation to CSS, the term "validation" is not pre-defined ...
Surely it would be possible to devise a strict grammar for CSS, in which
case software that identified syntax errors with respect to this grammar
could reasonably be called a validator.
Indeed, that's exactly what tools like the W3C CSS validator do (bugs aside).
But your words "could reasonably be called", when contrasted with something
more definite like "is by definition", make Alan's point. And - crucially -
once we have "is by definition", we need a formal and well-understood
definition not merely of the syntax to be validated, but of a validation
process. No such thing exists for CSS, which is why it's considered
to be legitimately open to armwaving like "could reasonably be called".
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
In article <op**************@news.individual.net>,
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> writes: What passes as HTML on the web has, on average, very little to do with
SGML... Albert has a point here :)
That point would be that validation is only one element in the QA process,
and probably not the most important.
It justifies having checking tools other than validators.
It doesn't justify selling a lie to innocent end-users.
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
In article <FT******************@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.ro gers.com>,
"C A Upsdell" <cupsdell0311XXX@-@-@XXXrogers.com> writes: CSS is not an SGML application, and makes no claim to being one. In
relation to CSS, the term "validation" is not pre-defined ...
Surely it would be possible to devise a strict grammar for CSS, in which
case software that identified syntax errors with respect to this grammar
could reasonably be called a validator.
Indeed, that's exactly what tools like the W3C CSS validator do (bugs aside).
But your words "could reasonably be called", when contrasted with something
more definite like "is by definition", make Alan's point. And - crucially -
once we have "is by definition", we need a formal and well-understood
definition not merely of the syntax to be validated, but of a validation
process. No such thing exists for CSS, which is why it's considered
to be legitimately open to armwaving like "could reasonably be called".
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
In article <op**************@news.individual.net>,
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek" <ri**@opera.com> writes: What passes as HTML on the web has, on average, very little to do with
SGML... Albert has a point here :)
That point would be that validation is only one element in the QA process,
and probably not the most important.
It justifies having checking tools other than validators.
It doesn't justify selling a lie to innocent end-users.
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Brian wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:
I should have said DTD validator to avoid the confusion.
Except that, in terms of SGML, there is no other kind.
What passes as HTML on the web has, on average, very little to do
with SGML...
You appear to know more about SGML than I do (that wouldn't be hard;
there are likely scores of folks here know more that I do). But I'll be
brave and ask questions.
If the HTML one finds on the www has little to do with SGML -- no
argument from me on that one -- does that change the meaning of HTML
validation? Does that divorce HTML validation entirely from SGML?
Albert has a point here :)
I'm not so sure. Whatever one may say about HTML on the www, I don't
think that's an excuse to mischaracterize a linter as a validator and
confuse the matter for the ignorant.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:48:48 -0400, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote:
... Albert has a point here :)
I'm not so sure. Whatever one may say about HTML on the www, I don't
think that's an excuse to mischaracterize a linter as a validator and
confuse the matter for the ignorant.
By creating a CSS checker and calling it a 'CSS validator', the W3C itself
indicates that there is more to the word 'validator' than parsing an SGML
document according to a DTD...
I think it shouldn't be too hard to build in 'real' DTD validation in
Albert's product, it would make it a better product. This criticism of CSE
is years old, and obviously either Albert is very stubborn, or he doesn't
understand why it can be useful to know a document is valid in the sense
of condforming to a specified DTD. Either way, it doesn't inspire much
confidence in the quality of the product.
--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 00:12:42 +0100, "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
[crossed, and fup's set, to ciwas]
[...] CSS is not an SGML application, and makes no claim to being one.
[...]
A thought that strikes me rather late in the day is if it would be
possible to create an SGML declaration that is fitting for the available
CSS syntax, i.e. could a retrofit work be done that brings the CSS
syntax into an SGML conforming state?
At time of writing this post I don't know if the idea of an SGML
declaration for available CSS syntax, and a DTDefinition that makes use
of that SGML declaration, is possible to turn into reality.
But it sure has a nice ring to it to be able to have a unified method of
true validation (based on nsgmls most probably) for both (X)HTML markup
and CSS stylesheets; No?
--
Rex .. <re*@css.nu> .. <http://css.nu/>
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:48:48 -0400, Brian
<us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: Rijk van Geijtenbeek wrote:
[...]
What passes as HTML on the web has, on average, very little to do
with SGML...
[...]
If the HTML one finds on the www has little to do with SGML --
...
-- does that hange the meaning of HTML validation?
No.
Does that divorce HTML validation entirely from SGML?
No. The HTML spec claims to describe an application of SGML; we all know
it has its flaws, and right out errors, in that respect.
Nevertheless, validation as per SGML terms is defined and shall be
available to all defined SGML applications.
Now if folks in general could only be brought to understand the inherent
meaning of a "markup syntax validation" and that it's not a God given
thing that automatically leads to a good www appearance :-)
Albert has a point here :)
I'm not so sure. Whatever one may say about HTML on the www, I don't
think that's an excuse to mischaracterize a linter as a validator and
confuse the matter for the ignorant.
I don't like Albert's naming approach either, but mind you all, his CSE
has a long track record as it goes back for some 6 years as I know of it
today. Back in the "early days of CSE" few people in the www area at
large, had a grip on the fact that the word "valid" might have been
claimed for special meaning in some obscure thing called SGML.
Albert can easily solve his long time criticized use of the words "HTML
validator" by writing an email to Liam Quinn and ask to buy his code for
a fully working front end of nsgmls. Liam "hacked up" a MS-Windows front
for nsgmls and asked $25 as a one time fee from people who wanted it.
Liam has not, to my knowledge, presented any new updates for some years
gone by but I still find that my chipped in $25 is worth all cents in
it.
Albert! (I know you are listening :-) Your next step as an update to
your CSE shall be the incorporation of 'onsgmls' and whatever code it
takes to make that program work seamless inside your CSE product.
Others have said the same already, just go ahead and do it will you :-)
--
Rex .. <re*@css.nu> .. <http://css.nu/>
Alan J. Flavell wrote: As Nick Kew already said on his web page:
<blockquote>
Unfortunately the issue is confused by the fact that some products
falsely claim to "validate", whilst in fact applying an arbitrary
selection of tests that are not derived from any standard. Such tools
may be genuinely useful, but should be used alongside true validation,
not in place of it.
</blockquote>
I have some similar comments on my page about validators: http://webtips.dan.info/validators.html
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:04:02 +0200, Torbjørn Pettersen <tpe AT broadpark
DOT no> wrote: What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that
that my
HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.
Like Brian said, a web author who advertises "Valid HTML!" is a little
like a policeman wearing a pin that says "I'm not corrupt" or a babysitter
with a T-shirt reading "I'm not a pedophile". You'd kinda hope they
wouldn't need to tout something we generally accept as being required for
competency and trustworthiness at their job.
Brian wrote... What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that
that my HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!".
Why? "Valid" icons are a mere distraction for visitors. Such icons or
declarations should be limited to a page describing the site mechanics,
which might include what tools were used to build the site, what
standards adhered to, etc.
If the web sites contents is of such a character that your visitors get
distracted by an icon, it might be time to consider if your content is
really worth a web site.
When the majority of web sites out there ::don't:: validate, having a
"Valid HTML 4.01!" icon serves two purposes; it tells your visitors
you have done an effort to make your site for as broad an audience
as you can, and it draws attention to valid HTML, and can help make
others do the same effort as you.
Torbjørn
Neal wrote... What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says that
that my
HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!". This can't happen with your software.
Like Brian said, a web author who advertises "Valid HTML!" is a little
like a policeman wearing a pin that says "I'm not corrupt" or a babysitter
with a T-shirt reading "I'm not a pedophile". You'd kinda hope they
wouldn't need to tout something we generally accept as being required for
competency and trustworthiness at their job.
So, you mean that the majority of web sites out there would pass the test?
And do you also think that the majority of people browsing the web know
what valid HTML is? Or that the majority of web builders know? If so,
then your post is deep and meaningful, if not..... well, then it really needs
to be re-thinked.
As I said in my reply to Brian;
When the majority of web sites out there ::don't:: validate, having a
"Valid HTML 4.01!" icon serves two purposes; it tells your visitors
you have done an effort to make your site for as broad an audience
as you can, and it draws attention to valid HTML, and can help make
others do the same effort as you.
Torbjørn
In article <op**************@news.rcn.com>,
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> writes: Like Brian said, a web author who advertises "Valid HTML!" is a little
like a policeman wearing a pin that says "I'm not corrupt" or a babysitter
with a T-shirt reading "I'm not a pedophile".
A better analogy would be a senior politician or judge with an
"I got where I am by honest means" label. It would be such an
unusual thing as to stand out. But the claim made by the HTML
badges has the advantage of being verifiable.
--
Nick Kew
Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:16:06 +0200, Torbjørn Pettersen <tpe AT broadpark
DOT no> wrote: So, you mean that the majority of web sites out there would pass the
test?
They should be expected to.
And do you also think that the majority of people browsing the web know
what valid HTML is?
They shouldn't have to know.
Or that the majority of web builders know?
Most do. Some don't recognize its value.
If so,
then your post is deep and meaningful, if not..... well, then it really
needs
to be re-thinked.
Nope.
As I said in my reply to Brian;
When the majority of web sites out there ::don't:: validate, having a
"Valid HTML 4.01!" icon serves two purposes; it tells your visitors
you have done an effort to make your site for as broad an audience
as you can, and it draws attention to valid HTML, and can help make
others do the same effort as you.
As Nick pointed out, a far better analogy is something like a box of food
at the grocer's which bears the label "Fit for human consumption!"
Sure, there's meaning behind the label. It communicates something - but
what it communicates is something most people don't care about, don't even
know about, and shouldn't even have to be touted.
Besides, you don't show the audience how the magic tricks work because
they don't really want to know. Keep the mechanics out of it. Unless your
page deals with coding valid pages, such a button isn't terribly relevant
to your target audience.
Torbjørn Pettersen wrote: What I'm after is to put that little gif on my page, which says
that that my HTML is "Valid HTML 4.01!".
Brian wrote... Why? "Valid" icons are a mere distraction for visitors. Such icons
or declarations should be limited to a page describing the site
mechanics, which might include what tools were used to build the
site, what standards adhered to, etc.
Torbjørn Pettersen wrote: If the web sites contents is of such a character that your visitors
get distracted by an icon, it might be time to consider if your
content is really worth a web site.
If your content is worth a web site, then you should stay focussed and
keep the page about that topic. If the page is not about html syntax,
then "valid html" is inappropriate. IMHO.
When the majority of web sites out there ::don't:: validate, having a
"Valid HTML 4.01!" icon
A "valid html" message has no meaning to most surfers.
serves two purposes; it tells your visitors you have done an effort
to make your site for as broad an audience as you can,
Why? just make it accessible. I don't see why you need to explicitly
tell them you made it accessible.
If you want to tell your audience what efforts you made to make the site
accessible, it might be appropriate -- but not on every page of the
site. Put it on one separate page, "about the site" or something. And on
that page, you might mention valid html. Although I wouldn't even do
that. An "about the site" page should be general interest. On my most
recent project, I do mention "valid html" and other such technical
matters. They are on a "mechanics" page, which begins with a warning
that the discussion that follows is technical. And it is only accessible
via the "about the site" page, which itself is only accessible
indirectly from the main site content.
and it draws attention to valid HTML, and can help make others do the
same effort as you.
If they're web authors, you mean. Is your page about web authoring?
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Torbjørn Pettersen wrote: do you also think that the majority of people browsing the web know
what valid HTML is?
No. Now, are all of your pages going to explain what html is, how it's
an application of sgml, and what validation means in terms of sgml? Are
you going to explain what a dtd is? If not, then how useful is a "valid
html" icon on a page?
I know there are a couple of analogies floating around, but let me add
mine. I used to work in radio, so this one seemed obvious to me:
Imagine if every radio program was interrupted before they ended with a
message like, "This program was correctly edited." Or, since so many
pages with "valid html" also have "valid css" and often a 3rd
icon/button of some sort, imagine if this were added in addition: "This
program was recorded correctly; the levels were neither too high, nor
too low. There was no audio clipping, nor any extraneous noise from
malfunctioning equipment."
That'd be a little strange, wouldn't it? Why wouldn't it be correctly
edited and recorded? It sort of implies that a different program might
have a message stuck in somewhere saying, "This program was not
correctly edited. We just sort of strung together some tape and made a
program."
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote... No. Now, are all of your pages going to explain what html is, how it's
an application of sgml, and what validation means in terms of sgml? Are
you going to explain what a dtd is? If not, then how useful is a "valid
html" icon on a page?
No. No. No. I tried to explain that, but.....
I know there are a couple of analogies floating around, but let me add
mine. I used to work in radio, so this one seemed obvious to me:
Imagine if every radio program was interrupted before they ended with a
message like, "This program was correctly edited." Or, since so many
pages with "valid html" also have "valid css" and often a 3rd
icon/button of some sort, imagine if this were added in addition: "This
program was recorded correctly; the levels were neither too high, nor
too low. There was no audio clipping, nor any extraneous noise from
malfunctioning equipment."
That'd be a little strange, wouldn't it? Why wouldn't it be correctly
edited and recorded? It sort of implies that a different program might
have a message stuck in somewhere saying, "This program was not
correctly edited. We just sort of strung together some tape and made a
program."
Neither your analogy, nor any of the other I have seen in this thread has
any value in this discussion, except to show that you think the broad public
knows about W3C and Valid HTML.
All your analogies use things that have been around for a very long time,
like radio and politicians. W3C, Valid HTML and building web sites
haven't been around that long, and now there are more and more "normal"
people out there building web sites, and a vast majority use WYSIWYG
tools that does ::not:: produce "good" HTML. These people don't have
any idea what W3C and Valid HTML is, many don't even know what
HTML is.
But, I see that I'm preaching for deaf ears, so I'll just give it up, and
concentrate on redoing my web site. ;-)
Torbjørn
Torbjørn Pettersen wrote: Neither your analogy, nor any of the other I have seen in this thread
has any value in this discussion, except to show that you think the
broad public knows about W3C and Valid HTML.
You have that backwards. I assume that the broader public neither knows,
nor really wants to know, what the w3c is, or what valid html means.
All your analogies use things that have been around for a very long
time, like radio
And yet, despite it having been around for a century, people still don't
understand the mechanics of radio, and don't really want to understand
them. Mostly, they just want to listen to it.
now there are more and more "normal" people out there building web
sites, and a vast majority use WYSIWYG tools that does ::not::
produce "good" HTML. These people don't have any idea what W3C and
Valid HTML is, many don't even know what HTML is.
Is your site about html authoring?
But, I see that I'm preaching for deaf ears,
This is Usenet. We have discussions here. We do not always agree. Welcome.
--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian wrote... now there are more and more "normal" people out there building web
sites, and a vast majority use WYSIWYG tools that does ::not::
produce "good" HTML. These people don't have any idea what W3C and
Valid HTML is, many don't even know what HTML is.
Is your site about html authoring?
No, but during the last week, since I started to learn about valid HTML and
CSS, I'm getting a broader understanding of how the web is used. One thing
is the fact that it never occoured to me that blind people surf. :-)
The first 3 months of this year visitors to my web site used close to 20 different
browsers to view my site, many of which probably have not seen my site as I
thought, because my HTML doesn't validate. Hell, it's not even close to validate!
But, with the answers I have received here, and some reading here and there,
I now see the value of building a web site using valid HTML.
No, my site is not about HTML authoring. It's about science fiction, fantasy and
horror books and authors and everything else that revolves around that subject.
I don't know how many of my visitors make web sites, but I know many of them
are publishers, authors and other people related to the business, and many (most)
of them have web sites. If my "Valid HTML" icon can make any of them interested
in making ::their:: web sites better through validating their HTML.... then the icon
serves it's purpose in my eyes. But, I see that I'm preaching for deaf ears,
This is Usenet. We have discussions here. We do not always agree. Welcome.
Thank God. Would be nice if everybody agreed with me, but terribly boring in
the long run. ;-)
<grin>
Not much sleep the last 14 day (new born baby in the house) has made me
a bit grumpy.
</grin>
Torbjørn
Albert Wiersch wrote: As for adding a real validator, I'd certainly look into it if there was
demand for it, but there's hardly anyone asking me to add it, and I'm not
going to add it just for the few people (two or three maybe?) who don't like
the name (who wouldn't buy it anyway).
Those two or three people happen to occupy somewhat of an authority
figure among at least certain memebers of the group. There are far more
reading this thread than participating in it--I just figured after
reading you saying "There's nothing wrong with that as I've chosen to
use some non-standard markup" that there's nothing really left for me to
say.
The CSE HTML 'Validator' provides a useful set of services. Now, make it
provide some core functionality--if done properly, your fiercest critics
might become your warmest advocates! How bad can that be?
-- http://www.firasd.org
* Nick Kew wrote in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html:Compiling OpenSP for windows is not for the faint-hearted, though it's now
been done. Hmmm, now that I think about it, there's a project now at
sourcefirge to add a validation bar to MSIE using a locally-installed
OpenSP. Check Bjoern Hoehrmann's posts to www-validator over recent months.
http://ieqabar.sourceforge.net/
Take your pick: w3c validator (Perl/CGI), WDG validator (Perl/CGI),
mod_validator (Apache module), or Saqib's PHP. One of these days
I'll grab Bjoern's OpenSP binary for windows and try building
mod_validator against it. http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de/ports/Ope...-win32-bin.zip are the
relevant binaries, in case someone is interested.
"Torbjørn Pettersen" <tpe AT broadpark DOT no> wrote in message
news:40********@news.broadpark.no... Brian wrote...
But, I see that I'm preaching for deaf ears, so I'll just give it up, and
concentrate on redoing my web site. ;-)
I know the feeling!
Anyway, I think it is an author's decision. On most pages, I don't see a
point to putting a Valid HTML icon on the pages, but if I see one, I do take
notice of it because it is related to what I do.
It is nice to see that some people care about their HTML, but if I were
designing a site for someone that was unrelated to the technology about
HTML, I would either not use an icon, or put it on the About page. But I'm
not going to argue with someone who wants to put it on their page... if they
want to, go ahead.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
"Firas" <us****@firasd.org> wrote in message
news:c5************@ID-214165.news.uni-berlin.de...
The CSE HTML 'Validator' provides a useful set of services. Now, make it
provide some core functionality--if done properly, your fiercest critics
might become your warmest advocates! How bad can that be?
That would be nice. I'll look into adding a real validator in the next major
release. If there is an easy way to add an open source validator, I'll
certainly try to get it done.
--
Albert Wiersch http://www.htmlvalidator.com/ This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Torbjørn Pettersen |
last post by:
As you might have noticed I'm trying to clean up my web site's
HTML code. The way I do it is simply more or less redoing to
complete site, testing it on a web server I have set up on my
local...
|
by: James Owens |
last post by:
I maintain a small web page for internal company use. People access it
by typing "library" in their browser address bar; this defaults to
"http://library" which the network admin magically...
|
by: Niki Kovacs |
last post by:
Hi,
I'm an Austrian writer living in Montpezat (South France). I just installed
a local W3C validator on my machine (Slackware 10.1, local Apache server).
It's accessible as...
|
by: Faith0G |
last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often need to import Excel data into databases (such as MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle) for data analysis and processing. Usually, we use database tools like Navicat or the Excel import...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
| |
