W3C validator

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Are questions regarding the use of the W3C HTML validator topical?

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: W3C validator

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:04:44 +0000 (UTC), Christopher Benson-Manica
<ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Are questions regarding the use of the W3C HTML validator topical?
>[/color]

<URL:http://groups.google.n l/groups?hl=nl&lr =&q=%22w3c+vali dator%22+OR+%22 w3c+validation% 22+html&btnG=Zo eken&meta=group %3Dcomp.infosys tems.www.author ing.html>

--
Weblog | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html>
Webontwerp | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html >
Zweefvliegen | <http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html>

[David Dorward]

Re: W3C validator

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
[color=blue]
> Are questions regarding the use of the W3C HTML validator topical?[/color]

No such thing - The W3C have a Markup Validator which happens to be able to
handle HTML. :D

Questions are on topic, so long as they are about validating HTML.

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

[C A Upsdell]

Re: W3C validator

"Christophe r Benson-Manica" <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote in message
news:coo72c$3r7 $1@chessie.cirr .com...[color=blue]
> Are questions regarding the use of the W3C HTML validator topical?[/color]

Yes, but try really hard to figure it out on your own first. The time you
spend coming to understand the errors will help you develop a deeper
understanding of HTML, hence will make you a better coder.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: W3C validator

C A Upsdell <cupsdell0311XX X@-@-@xxxrogers.com> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> Yes, but try really hard to figure it out on your own first. The time you
> spend coming to understand the errors will help you develop a deeper
> understanding of HTML, hence will make you a better coder.[/color]

Well, it's not really about the errors - my goal was to get a
validation link on the bottom of pages I maintain, but since they
require a user to be logged in, a simple link won't work. I suppose
that's off-topic, but that's why I asked.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Neal]

Re: W3C validator

Christopher Benson-Manica[color=blue]
> Well, it's not really about the errors - my goal was to get a
> validation link on the bottom of pages I maintain[/color]

Why? What value would it give your visitor?

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: W3C validator

Neal <neal413@yahoo. com> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> Why? What value would it give your visitor?[/color]

None, but it would give value to me and the other people who maintain
these pages. We have the ability to only add such a link for test
situations, so our customers need never see it.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Mark Parnell]

Re: W3C validator

Previously in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Christopher
Benson-Manica <ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> said:
[color=blue]
> my goal was to get a
> validation link on the bottom of pages I maintain, but since they
> require a user to be logged in, a simple link won't work.[/color]

Well, you could add something to your login script that allows the IP of
the validator to access the page without actually logging in. Not sure
that it would really be worth it though (and no doubt there are lots of
security implications, including many that I'm probably not aware of).

--
Mark Parnell

http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[Neal]

Re: W3C validator

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 02:46:53 +0000 (UTC), Christopher Benson-Manica
<ataru@nospam.c yberspace.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Neal <neal413@yahoo. com> spoke thus:
>[color=green]
>> Why? What value would it give your visitor?[/color]
>
> None, but it would give value to me and the other people who maintain
> these pages. We have the ability to only add such a link for test
> situations, so our customers need never see it.[/color]

Pardon my cheek - but what deity gave you this awesome power? ;)

I run the Opera browser. All I need do it right-click and select
"Validate" and it's done. I have a toolbar on IE which does the same thing.

What I'm trying to say is that if you put it on the page, it should be
useful to the visitor. There are any number of ways to make it easy to
validate for the author. Validation really isn't of interest to the user,
therefore it ought not be in the HTML as a link.

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Re: W3C validator

Neal <neal413@yahoo. com> spoke thus:
[color=blue]
> Pardon my cheek - but what deity gave you this awesome power? ;)[/color]

A magical entity called "CGI" :)
[color=blue]
> I run the Opera browser. All I need do it right-click and select
> "Validate" and it's done. I have a toolbar on IE which does the same thing.[/color]

I run Opera, but no one else does, and it doesn't always render things
the way IE does, for better and worse. What is this toolbar you speak
of for IE? It sounds like a good idea...
[color=blue]
> What I'm trying to say is that if you put it on the page, it should be
> useful to the visitor. There are any number of ways to make it easy to
> validate for the author. Validation really isn't of interest to the user,
> therefore it ought not be in the HTML as a link.[/color]

It's a long story, but trust me, the users will never see it :)

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cybers pace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Kris]

Re: W3C validator

In article <opsievudzk6v66 56@news.individ ual.net>,
Neal <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Validation really isn't of interest to the user..[/color]

However, valid markup is. Invalid markup has the potential of getting in
the way between the user and the information he is looking for, while
valid markup can empower the user to reach his goals.

--
Kris
<kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> (nl)

[Neal]

Re: W3C validator

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:15:02 +0100, Kris <kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <opsievudzk6v66 56@news.individ ual.net>,
> Neal <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Validation really isn't of interest to the user..[/color]
>
> However, valid markup is.[/color]

Yes. Did I imply otherwise?

[Kris]

Re: W3C validator

In article <opsif8nft06v66 56@news.individ ual.net>,
Neal <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Validation really isn't of interest to the user..[/color]
> >
> > However, valid markup is.[/color]
>
> Yes. Did I imply otherwise?[/color]

You didn't. I contributed to the tread.

--
Kris
<kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> (nl)

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Re: W3C validator

Kris <kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> writes:
[color=blue]
> Neal <neal413@yahoo. com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Validation really isn't of interest to the user..[/color]
>
> However, valid markup is.[/color]

Sigh.

Markup is valid if a document entity sports a prolog with a document
type declaration that declares or includes some formal rules that the
document instant set appears to conform to.

That's of no interest whatsoever to any user on the WWW (and especially
to the horse they came in on).

HTML can syntactically conform to a spec, not be valid because there
simply is no doctype declaration and not cause any problems, or it can
be valid and cause a lot of problems, or it can not be valid because it
actually uses a different syntax than declared in the declaration and
still cause no problems. And so on. And on. And on.


--
| ) Più Cabernet,
-( meno Internet.
| ) http://bednarz.nl/