http://validator.w3.org/

buddy

http://validator.w3.org/

Who use's it?

Look what it says when you try:

boards.ie

cloud.ie

nahdoic

I'm using it for the third relaunch of StatCounter. All the pages completely validate and they all look great. So it's easily done to get it to validate.

The trick I found mainly is to use tables with style sheets in each of the <td>, so you can specify the fonts/colors perfectly to suit your website and make it look very professional and it still validates.

The reason boards.ie is completely failing is because they need a line like this in the header

<META HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">

I don't think it's really a matter of who is using it, but rather do you want your website to be completely interoperable with all technologies (some you woudn't even be aware of) that are compliant to HTML 4.0 ?

If you do, then get it to validate, if you just want it work with the browsers you have on your computer then just test them with that.

buddy

Yes, I'd need to add that in to get www.alcobuds.com validated as well, you'd think you could tell the thing thats its HTML/XHTML that its to validate.

I just wondered who considers it crucial as I consider boards.ie a huge site which has'nt used it.

nahdoic

You think that's bad?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2F

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29&charset=%28detect+automatically%29

Yahoo don't even know what it's for, and you'd think google might be able to handle it, but no.

crucial?

No way. But like I said, if you want your website to be interoperable with all technologies who are compliant to HTML 4.0, some you aren't even aware of then you should get it to validate.

If you just want it to work in some browsers, then just test it in them.

buddy

Cheers, its mad that these "web leaders" don't use it - thats cool - I just saw people mention it a lot around the place and that led me to believe it was considered to be very neccesary.

mneylon

Getting your site to validate correctly if you use a WYSIWYG editor can be an interesting exercise. If you handcode you probably won't have any problems.
In many respects it's good for catching the IE only type code etc.

buddy

Originally posted by blacknight
Getting your site to validate correctly if you use a WYSIWYG editor can be an interesting exercise. If you handcode you probably won't have any problems.
In many respects it's good for catching the IE only type code etc.

That fecks up a lot of us so, I primarily use Frontpage (Yes, I know - not everyone likes it and uses Dreamweaver) and that supposedly produces code depending on your selections.

When I look at the source it generally does'nt do anything I would'nt do using hand coding.

The question is if my "code" would be valid!

Ph3n0m

From my work using the validator and doing different types of sites, I found a couple of interesting things

1) Local companies dont care about validating code, i.e. companies whose main market is in the country where they are based

2) Multi national or global companies do care to a certain extent, when they are aiming for say the Japanese markets -I have witnessed several times a company getting shot down because their website was not W3C complaint

3) W3C is a great for bragging rights, something you can put on your site and lay claim to fame that all code is validated

4) End users - tbh, dont give a damn if a site is valid or not, as long as it is browser compliant that is all they care about at the end of the day

Just my 2cents*


* and yes i use Homesite

Webmonkey

Originally posted by buddy
That fecks up a lot of us so, I primarily use Frontpage (Yes, I know - not everyone likes it and uses Dreamweaver) and that supposedly produces code depending on your selections.

When I look at the source it generally does'nt do anything I would'nt do using hand coding.

The question is if my "code" would be valid!

If you can create a basic page without making one error you will succeed but if you go back like deleting tables, merging colums then i think things get a bit mixed up

mneylon

If you rely soley on a WYSIWYG editor you can have problems.
As already mentioned, users don't care, but if the users are using an Apple Mac, or are in an environment where the predefined version of IE or whatever is beyond their control they may see odd things....

Webmonkey

so much for WYSISYG

buddy

Originally posted by Ph3n0m
From my work using the validator and doing different types of sites, I found a couple of interesting things

1) Local companies dont care about validating code, i.e. companies whose main market is in the country where they are based

2) Multi national or global companies do care to a certain extent, when they are aiming for say the Japanese markets -I have witnessed several times a company getting shot down because their website was not W3C complaint

3) W3C is a great for bragging rights, something you can put on your site and lay claim to fame that all code is validated

4) End users - tbh, dont give a damn if a site is valid or not, as long as it is browser compliant that is all they care about at the end of the day

Just my 2cents*


* and yes i use Homesite

1. These would be my main target market

2. Doubt I'd be taking on Multinationals yet

3. I'll add in the lines to my sites and see if I'm entitled to brag.

4. So long as they can see it - indeed.

JustHalf

Valid code is extremely handy.

http://www.alistapart.com/stories/doctype/
Per HTML and XHTML standards, a DOCTYPE (short for “document type declaration”) informs the validator which version of (X)HTML you’re using, and must appear at the very top of every web page. DOCTYPEs are a key component of compliant web pages: your markup and CSS won’t validate without them.

As mentioned in previous ALA articles (and in other interesting places), DOCTYPES are also essential to the proper rendering and functioning of web documents in compliant browsers like Mozilla, IE5/Mac, and IE6/Win.

A recent DOCTYPE that includes a full URI (a complete web address) tells these browsers to render your page in standards–compliant mode, treating your (X)HTML, CSS, and DOM as you expect them to be treated.

Using an incomplete or outdated DOCTYPE—or no DOCTYPE at all—throws these same browsers into “Quirks” mode, where the browser assumes you’ve written old-fashioned, invalid markup and code per the depressing industry norms of the late 1990s.

In this setting, the browser will attempt to parse your page in backward–compatible fashion, rendering your CSS as it might have looked in IE4, and reverting to a proprietary, browser–specific DOM. (IE reverts to the IE DOM; Mozilla and Netscape 6 revert to who knows what.)

Clearly, this is not what you want. But it is often what you’ll get, due to the preponderance of incorrect or incomplete DOCTYPE information this article hopes to correct.

Kai

For those of you using Dreamweaver MX heres a good article addressing the xhtml valid code situation :

http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/mx/dreamweaver/articles/code_standards.html

I think people should make an active effort to produce valid code where possible and within reason. Obviously if you have a dynamic site it can be a little trickier but if it means that the site works correctly for your visitors then its well worth the effort.

p

The thing is you don't have to validate your code, but it's best practice, ans the sign of a true professional.

Many legacy sites, like boards would involve a lot of work to change over so it'll take time.

The reason's for validating your code is this

#1 It's the best way of ensuring your code will work with future browsers.
#2 The more you do it now, the less you'll have to worry about it in the future. People used to handcode postscript for print work, but now it easily be done using an application.
#3 Using industry standards means that consumers have more choice, and that's good for the end user.
#4 Pages that validate will render more quickly because browsers don't have to guess what things are supposed to look like.

At the end of the day, you dom't have to do it, and it's in your own best interest, since it'll make your life a whole lot easier in a few years time.

There's very good reasons to validate your code here:
http://www.maccaws.org/
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/ 2003/why-web-standards/

Webmonkey

Originally posted by p
The thing is you don't have to validate your code, but it's best practice, ans the sign of a true professional.

Many legacy sites, like boards would involve a lot of work to change over so it'll take time.

The reason's for validating your code is this

#1 It's the best way of ensuring your code will work with future browsers.
#2 The more you do it now, the less you'll have to worry about it in the future. People used to handcode postscript for print work, but now it easily be done using an application.
#3 Using industry standards means that consumers have more choice, and that's good for the end user.
#4 Pages that validate will render more quickly because browsers don't have to guess what things are supposed to look like.

At the end of the day, you dom't have to do it, and it's in your own best interest, since it'll make your life a whole lot easier in a few years time.

There's very good reasons to validate your code here:
http://www.maccaws.org/
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/ 2003/why-web-standards/

Glad someone sees it in my way

nahdoic

Originally posted by Webmonkey
Glad someone sees it in my way

sees what in your way?

Webmonkey

That you DON'T have to validate your code but then again its good practice to do so which is why from now on I shall be attempting to get valid code

nahdoic

Right. Well you should be very glad so, because I don't think anyone would disagree with that way of thinking.

Webmonkey

Originally posted by nahdoic
Right. Well you should be very glad so, because I don't think anyone would disagree with that way of thinking.

Finally we agree on something

But what annoyed me was how people were saying that the site is worth nothing without it validating and their own sites wern't even validating. Do you agree with me there

nahdoic

Finally we agree on something

Hey. I'm as shocked as you.

Nobody would have said your website is worth nothing because it doesn't validate. But everyone agrees that it would be worth so much more if it does validate. And there are different degrees to getting your website to validate - between showing a very good understanding of web standards, and not giving a flying whoop what sorta crap your WYSIWYG editor throws out for you.

Webmonkey

Thats very true :cool:

Well its time for me to concentrate more on coding html rather than on design output.

Well i've got a few books now, XHTML but at the moment i'm on php,mysql work , once that book is finished i shall be moving to XHTML

*Webmonkey sticks his head back in the book

JustHalf

One thing that's good to know is that XHTML / CSS based websites are "easy" to make accessable to a wide variety of readers (traditional web browsers, mobile phones, PDAs, screen readers, etc). They also tend to be smaller (in kilobytes).

There's no good reason anymore to code table-based websites for the general web audience.

mneylon

Originally posted by Webmonkey
Finally we agree on something

But what annoyed me was how people were saying that the site is worth nothing without it validating and their own sites wern't even validating. Do you agree with me there

The difference is that none of the people who criticised you had posted their sites for criticism. You do - constantly and then you get upset when we pick them apart. If you do not want to have your site criticised by people who are:
1. Older and more experienced than you
2. IT Professionals
3. Experts in their respective fields

then don't post your URLs.

If you do want criticism then post away, but don't try to rhetort with comments on our own sites - we never asked for a review - you did!

p

If anyone's interested in a good soft introduction to web stands then Jeffrey Zeldman's Designing with Web Standards would be a good purchase.

mneylon

Zeldman is excellent...

If you look at sites like alistapart and web standards etc., etc., you quickly realise (if you haven't already) that you can respect standards while still producing quality sites.

Nobody is saying it's easy, but it's nice

Webmonkey

Thanks blacknight, well I guess we learn to accept these things.

Lets call it even