CSS validator links on pages

[Lee K. Seitz]

What are this group's members' ideas about including W3C validator
(http://validator.w3.org) graphics on web pages? Specifically, should
they be on every page? I can see including an HTML/XHTML validation
graphic on each page. That way you can quickly check the page any
time you update it.

But what about the CSS validator? Typically (I hope), the CSS is
in an external stylesheet that every page on the site links to or
imports. So do you just include it on the main (or home) page of the
site? That makes sense to me.

But then what about special cases? For example, I'm currently working
on revamping part of my site. Because I only use certain styles on
specific subsets of pages, I decided to keep things "simple" by using
separate, imported stylesheets (in addition to the main one) on those
subsets. (Assuming import-compliant browsers, this is how you should
do things, isn't it?)

There really isn't a "main" page in these subsets. Should I include a
CSS validator graphic on each one (for the additional, imported
stylesheet) or is that overkill? What about pages that import
multiple stylesheets? Should I include a CSS validator for each one
imported or am I just getting silly now?

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but I'm new here and my quick
Google Groups search didn't find it.

--
lkseitz (Lee K. Seitz) .at. hiwaay @dot@ net
"I respect faith but doubt is what gets you an education."
-- Wilson Mizner

[Citizen Trout]

Lee K. Seitz wrote:

What are this group's members' ideas about including W3C validator
(http://validator.w3.org) graphics on web pages? Specifically, should
they be on every page? I can see including an HTML/XHTML validation
graphic on each page. That way you can quickly check the page any
time you update it.

But what about the CSS validator? Typically (I hope), the CSS is
in an external stylesheet that every page on the site links to or
imports. So do you just include it on the main (or home) page of the
site? That makes sense to me.

But then what about special cases? For example, I'm currently working
on revamping part of my site. Because I only use certain styles on
specific subsets of pages, I decided to keep things "simple" by using
separate, imported stylesheets (in addition to the main one) on those
subsets. (Assuming import-compliant browsers, this is how you should
do things, isn't it?)

There really isn't a "main" page in these subsets. Should I include a
CSS validator graphic on each one (for the additional, imported
stylesheet) or is that overkill? What about pages that import
multiple stylesheets? Should I include a CSS validator for each one
imported or am I just getting silly now?

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but I'm new here and my quick
Google Groups search didn't find it.

You don't need to use the graphics at all, you could just use a discreet
text link.
The question you might want to ask yourself is:
"Does it matter to anyone but me that it's valid?"

If everything validates then you maybe should just feel good in yourself
about it, you've earned the graphic or the right to link to the
validator but are you sacrificing aesthetics to do so ?

You don't have to.

After all it's valid, isn't that enough ?

[Lee K. Seitz]

In article <j9******************@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Citizen Trout <no****@this.com> wrote:

You don't need to use the graphics at all, you could just use a discreet
text link.
The question you might want to ask yourself is:
"Does it matter to anyone but me that it's valid?"

Wow, what a fast reply! Yes, everything you say is true. But being
new at XHTML and still not confident in my rudimentary CSS skills, I'm
also thinking of ease of re-checking the pages as I modify them. One
click is a lot better than filling out a form.

Also, I would like to support whatever grassroots effort there is to
ensure valid HTML/CSS is used everywhere on the web. I've seen some
of what's out there and it gives me chills. 8)

--
lkseitz (Lee K. Seitz) .at. hiwaay @dot@ net
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
-- Albert Einstein

[Citizen Trout]

Lee K. Seitz wrote:

In article <j9******************@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Citizen Trout <no****@this.com> wrote:

You don't need to use the graphics at all, you could just use a discreet
text link.
The question you might want to ask yourself is:
"Does it matter to anyone but me that it's valid?"

Wow, what a fast reply! Yes, everything you say is true. But being
new at XHTML and still not confident in my rudimentary CSS skills, I'm
also thinking of ease of re-checking the pages as I modify them. One
click is a lot better than filling out a form.

Also, I would like to support whatever grassroots effort there is to
ensure valid HTML/CSS is used everywhere on the web. I've seen some
of what's out there and it gives me chills. 8)

If you are using Mozilla there is an extension called "Web Developer"

http://extensionroom.mozdev.org

or

http://chrispederick.myacen.com/work.../webdeveloper/

This will allow you to check your pages and your css from a toolbar
(uploaded pages that is).

[Michael Rozdoba]

Citizen Trout wrote:

If you are using Mozilla there is an extension called "Web Developer"

http://extensionroom.mozdev.org

or

http://chrispederick.myacen.com/work.../webdeveloper/

This will allow you to check your pages and your css from a toolbar
(uploaded pages that is).

Cheers. Downloaded & installed; thanks :)

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t

[Thomas Mlynarczyk]

>> http://chrispederick.myacen.com/work.../webdeveloper/

Help - I now have a downloaded xpi-file. What do I do with it?

[Citizen Trout]

Thomas Mlynarczyk wrote:

http://chrispederick.myacen.com/work.../webdeveloper/

Help - I now have a downloaded xpi-file. What do I do with it?

Right Ok.
*Presuming* you are a Windows user...(apologies if not, It should be
easy enough to locate FAQs for Linux or MAC)
You need to click the the download link whilst viewing the page in
Mozilla or Firebird, preferably a recent build (nightly builds may be a
bit dodgy for installing extensions) so..Moz 1.6 or Firebird 0.7.
It should then download, bring up some instructions and then install,
you then need to restart Moz/Firebird.

If you have saved it to your desktop, this won't happen.

If you can't do this from the Pederick link then use the
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org link, click on the link for the browser
you are using and scroll down to "Web Developer" and click the relevant
link for your browser.

[Thomas Mlynarczyk]

Also sprach Citizen Trout:

*Presuming* you are a Windows user
Yes. Win98SE.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020611
You need to click the the download link whilst viewing the page in
Mozilla
I did that using the link you gave below. But no instructions came up, and
even after restarting Mozilla my Web-Developement menu contains the same as
before: Consoles for Java and JavaScript. Do I need a newer version of
Mozilla?
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org

[Citizen Trout]

Thomas Mlynarczyk wrote:

Also sprach Citizen Trout:

*Presuming* you are a Windows user

Yes. Win98SE.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020611

You need to click the the download link whilst viewing the page in
Mozilla

I did that using the link you gave below. But no instructions came up, and
even after restarting Mozilla my Web-Developement menu contains the same as
before: Consoles for Java and JavaScript. Do I need a newer version of
Mozilla?

http://extensionroom.mozdev.org

I would do.
Get 1.6 off the front page of http://www.mozila.org

Be sure to uninstall 1.1a completely and delete the mozilla.org
installation directory from "program files" first.

[Michael Rozdoba]

Citizen Trout wrote:

Right Ok.
*Presuming* you are a Windows user...(apologies if not, It should be
easy enough to locate FAQs for Linux or MAC)
You need to click the the download link whilst viewing the page in
Mozilla or Firebird, preferably a recent build (nightly builds may be a
bit dodgy for installing extensions) so..Moz 1.6 or Firebird 0.7.
It should then download, bring up some instructions and then install,
you then need to restart Moz/Firebird.

If you have saved it to your desktop, this won't happen.

I save all such downloads to let me install them across several
machines. All you need do is subsequently open a Moz/FB browser window &
drag the xpi file into it; Firebird was then happy to install the file
from the local drive.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t

[Citizen Trout]

Michael Rozdoba wrote:

Citizen Trout wrote:

Right Ok.
*Presuming* you are a Windows user...(apologies if not, It should be
easy enough to locate FAQs for Linux or MAC)
You need to click the the download link whilst viewing the page in
Mozilla or Firebird, preferably a recent build (nightly builds may be
a bit dodgy for installing extensions) so..Moz 1.6 or Firebird 0.7.
It should then download, bring up some instructions and then install,
you then need to restart Moz/Firebird.

If you have saved it to your desktop, this won't happen.

I save all such downloads to let me install them across several
machines. All you need do is subsequently open a Moz/FB browser window &
drag the xpi file into it; Firebird was then happy to install the file
from the local drive.

Never occured to me that!

[Thomas Mlynarczyk]

Also sprach Citizen Trout:

Get 1.6 off the front page of http://www.mozila.org
Be sure to uninstall 1.1a completely and delete the mozilla.org
installation directory from "program files" first.

Couldn't I simply install 1.6 to a different directory?

[Citizen Trout]

Thomas Mlynarczyk wrote:

Also sprach Citizen Trout:

Get 1.6 off the front page of http://www.mozila.org
Be sure to uninstall 1.1a completely and delete the mozilla.org
installation directory from "program files" first.

Couldn't I simply install 1.6 to a different directory?

I've never tried but the Mozilla installer tells you that it will remove
the old version and any third party extensions and plug-ins.
I'd look through Mozilla FAQs if I were you and also, this is Windows we
are talking about here..that registry can get a bit cranky!

I'm not going to suggest that you should try it.
The choice is yours but there's plenty of docs at Mozilla.

[Thomas Mlynarczyk]

Also sprach Citizen Trout:

Couldn't I simply install 1.6 to a different directory?

I've never tried but the Mozilla installer tells you that it will
remove the old version and any third party extensions and plug-ins.

He didn't tell me that - unless I really overlooked it.
I installed Moz1.6 to a different directory. He overwrote my desktop
shortcut, but I created a new one for my old Mozilla. Now I can use both
(not simultaneously though), even though they start up with a page saying
something about Netscape 6.1 (I have that one installed too). Must have
something to do with profiles or registry info. Well, I can live with that.
But this Web Developer extension still refuses to install itself. :-(

[Citizen Trout]

Thomas Mlynarczyk wrote:

Also sprach Citizen Trout:

Couldn't I simply install 1.6 to a different directory?

I've never tried but the Mozilla installer tells you that it will
remove the old version and any third party extensions and plug-ins.

He didn't tell me that - unless I really overlooked it.
I installed Moz1.6 to a different directory. He overwrote my desktop
shortcut, but I created a new one for my old Mozilla. Now I can use both
(not simultaneously though), even though they start up with a page saying
something about Netscape 6.1 (I have that one installed too). Must have
something to do with profiles or registry info. Well, I can live with that.
But this Web Developer extension still refuses to install itself. :-(

Did you try dropping the file onto the browser window as mentioned
elsewhere in the thread?

[Thomas Mlynarczyk]

Also sprach Citizen Trout:

Did you try dropping the file onto the browser window as mentioned
elsewhere in the thread?

Yes, that too. But meanwhile I had a look at the FAQ and found the solution:
http://mozilla.gunnars.net/mozfaq_us...all_extensions
Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Software installation = must be enabled!
After this I had no problems installing the extension by dropping the file
onto the browser window - and it even works in the old Mozilla1.1a.

Happy again,
Thomas

(What have I learned from this? "Thou shalt not be too lazy to read the
FAQ.")

[Brian]

Citizen Trout wrote:

Lee K. Seitz wrote:

being new at XHTML and still not confident in my rudimentary CSS
skills, I'm also thinking of ease of re-checking the pages as I
modify them. One click is a lot better than filling out a form.
If you are using Mozilla there is an extension called "Web
Developer"

Or Checky, which gives you access to a range of validation and error
checking services via mouse right click or keyboard.
http://extensionroom.mozdev.org

Checky is listed on that page, or get it at
http://checky.mozdev.org/

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Stan Brown]

It seems "" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

What are this group's members' ideas about including W3C validator
(http://validator.w3.org) graphics on web pages? Specifically, should
they be on every page? I can see including an HTML/XHTML validation
graphic on each page. That way you can quickly check the page any
time you update it.

Are you writing pages for yourself, or for your readers?

I used to have "Valid HTML" logos and links on all my pages, but
removed them because someone reading about polynomials or the One
Ring is interested in that, not in the composition of my Web page.

So my answer, for what it's worth, is: Lose the HTML _and_ CSS
validation graphics, unless your page is about HTML or CSS.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Stan Brown wrote:

It seems "" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

What are this group's members' ideas about including W3C validator
(http://validator.w3.org) graphics on web pages? Specifically, should
they be on every page? I can see including an HTML/XHTML validation
graphic on each page. That way you can quickly check the page any
time you update it.
Are you writing pages for yourself, or for your readers?

Fair comment. The bookmarklets (to use my preferred term) at
http://validator.w3.org/favelets.html are a better solution if people
want to be able to check web pages. Works for any web page, no
special page contents required.
I used to have "Valid HTML" logos and links on all my pages, but
removed them because someone reading about polynomials or the One
Ring is interested in that, not in the composition of my Web page.

So my answer, for what it's worth, is: Lose the HTML _and_ CSS
validation graphics, unless your page is about HTML or CSS.

I'll drink to that. I'd have no objection to a modest link on one's
navigation menu, "About these pages..." or similar, to a page where
one sets out one's philosophy of web design, and links to favoured
tools etc. That way, people who are interested to see behind the
scenes can check it out, whereas folks who came only to read about
basket-weaving or particle physics or Morris-dancing, whatever the
pages are supposed to be about, aren't distracted by off-topic
materials about web authoring practices.

IMHO anyway.

[Brian]

Lee K. Seitz wrote:

What are this group's members' ideas about including W3C validator
(http://validator.w3.org) graphics on web pages? Specifically,
should they be on every page?
No. They should not be on any page, unless the topic of the page is
validation icons.
I can see including an HTML/XHTML validation graphic on each page.
That way you can quickly check the page any time you update it.
Don't confuse your visitors in order to make your authoring job
easier. Instead, use a browser/plug-in to facilitate validation.
But what about the CSS validator?

Same thing. Don't include it.

The only exception might be a "site info" page, which might mention
the technologies used on the site.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Stan Brown]

It seems "Alan J. Flavell" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Fair comment. The bookmarklets (to use my preferred term) at
http://validator.w3.org/favelets.html are a better solution if people
want to be able to check web pages. Works for any web page, no
special page contents required.

Also it's possible to download NSGMLS and check pages on one's local
computer.
ftp://ftp.jclark.com/pub/sp/

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Shirley A Sharan]

I did that using the link you gave below. But no instructions came up, and
even after restarting Mozilla my Web-Developement menu contains the same as
before: Consoles for Java and JavaScript. Do I need a newer version of
Mozilla?

http://extensionroom.mozdev.org

You're looking at the wrong place - further up the Tools menu is an
item called Web Developer (not Web development which is further down
the menu). This is the tool you want -

HTH,
Shyrl

[Thomas Mlynarczyk]

Also sprach Shirley A Sharan:

You're looking at the wrong place - further up the Tools menu is an
item called Web Developer (not Web development which is further down
the menu). This is the tool you want -

Ah, indeed, I had not noticed that. (So far I've seen only the toolbar.)
Thanks for pointing it out to me. (However, my problem was that Mozilla
didn't want to install the Web Developer in the first place, but meanwhile I
was able to solve that.)