Often someone posts a request for a critique of their website, and
there are several responses that say something like,

"your site failed validation"

"your site had twelve gazillion validation errors"

O...kay, so this is another reminder (like I need more) that I don't
know everything. I started fiddling with websites about 3-4 years ago
because I needed one, have been writing a boatload of code that has
evolved into an ecommerce engine, and I'm hoping to make a few bucks
from it one of these days, but there are lots-and-bunches of things
about the internet that I'm still ignorant of.

So what's the deal with this validation stuff? Some specific
questions:

* Presumably there are validation tools running around. Are these
usually web-based that work on the html files, or are they
browser-based?

* Which ones are the virus-laden bug-ridden ones that can destroy a
windoze system if you're silly enough to install them? (I know,
windoze is pre-destroyed, but history and finances direct one's
present.) Are there some good ones? A chosen favorite?

* What makes validation holy... by that I mean:

- Which of the validation tools are solid enough to point out
errors in target sites instead of errors in themselves?

- What standards do these validation tools hold the target site
to? Are they just looking for html 4.0 errors according to the specs?
Are there additional this-is-always-bad things they check for?

- Who decided what makes a site valid and what makes it naughty?
Are we talking about html specs, some standard agreed upon by a
community, or just whatever the tool-writer decided?

tia.

--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft...action=contact

hug wrote:
hat I'm still ignorant of.
http://validator.w3.org/
http://htmlhelp.org/tools/validator/
http://www.arealvalidator.com/
http://packages.debian.org/stable/we...validator.html

I'm not aware of any validators that aren't mature enough to be mostly bug
free.

The DTD specified by the Doctype at the beginning of the markup file.

Some tools perform additional checks, but those checks are not part of
validation.

They check against that subset of the standard that can be expressed using a
DTD.


--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

Fleeing from the madness of the . jungle
hug <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:

ok - this is a question about 'what/how/where/when' - we'll leave the
'why' for others to mull over.

Also, I'm assuming we're talking about markup - not CSS/SQL or any other
quantifiable thingie.

yes - know what you mean. I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to:
"which way is up?"

Not sure of the difference. There are web based tools that display the
results in your browser and there are local executables.

No idea - never heard of any - which doesn't mean they don't exist

I like this one: http://validator.w3.org/ - there are others

hrmm - I doubt any of them are 100% perfect

The spec you tell it you're writing to.

If you use HTML 4.0 then that is what the validator will check against.
btw: HTML 4.01 (strict) is generally preferred for new web documents.

what did you have in mind?

ahh - politics. next.

the former is useful, the latter only likely to be helpful if /you/ write
your own.

--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.

David Dorward <dorward@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks. Is there a common favorite?

--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft...action=contact

"William Tasso" <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:

Thanks WIlliam.

Thanks again.

--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft...action=contact

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 05:10:49 -0700, hug
<contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote:

Have tin of worms, shall open <g>

There's one de-facto (sic). Which is the W3C, online facility.

See above

The W3C are a committee that decide what is and isn't valid HTML,
though many others disagree with their right to do so, and some
browser publishers continue to add their own extensions.

They gold the site to the specification dependent upon which
specification the HTML page claims to adhere to, or not. And yes,
there are many. Confused? You will be! <g>

The W3C commitee, as pointed out.

The term 'naughty' is inappropriate. Some anarchists like me don't
like the idea of being told that former HTML is now invalid, or that
HTML which is recognised by a browser is actually invalid because....

But that's my right, I'm not a web designer being paid by clients! If
I was, or if I were hiring someone I may voice a different opinion.

Matt

"hug" <contact_info@sig_line.clickit> wrote in message
news:r2ocs1lgdqnjhejva00k6koc2moija11j6@4ax.com...
http://validator.w3.org/ is my favourite - does that make it common?

Fleeing from the madness of the The Probert Encyclopaedia jungle
Matt Probert <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> stumbled into
news:alt.www.webmaster
and said:

living proof that dependability != boring.

--
William Tasso

Save the drama
for your Mama.

hug wrote:

HTML 4.01 Strict is usually most suitable for documents written today.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote:

Not that alone, but you're at least the 2nd to mention it as a
favorite.

--
http://www.ren-prod-inc.com/hug_soft...action=contact