3 questions on validation

[Gérard Talbot]

Cross-posted to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html and alt.html
Followup-to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html

1- One day, I stumbled across a website that offers to validate
webpages. What was really special about that site is that the validation
service was available in Russian, German, Spanish and English. Now, I
can't find this site anymore. I did search google. Do you know such
site? What's its url?

2- Generally speaking, the most damaging markup code errors are improper
nesting. Damaging in the sense that it breaks the layout. Any comment on
this? Do you agree?

3- I've written a webpage explaining what is validation (HTML, CSS and
also WCAG). That page is targeting users who know pretty much nothing
about markup code, web authoring issues, etc. or who know little and who
might be using FrontPage and lower class products of this sort. I'd like
to hear some feedback on that page, preferably constructive criticisms,
suggestions, useful feedback, etc.

http://www.gtalbot.org/Varia/ValidationExplanations.html

Cross-posted to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html and alt.html
Followup-to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Travis Newbury]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Gérard Talbot wrote:[color=blue]
> Cross-posted to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html and alt.html
> Followup-to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html[/color]

You seem to have missed the point that validation is a "tool" not a
"goal"

--
-=tn=-

[David Dorward]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Gérard Talbot wrote:[color=blue]
> 1- One day, I stumbled across a website that offers to validate
> webpages. What was really special about that site is that the validation
> service was available in Russian, German, Spanish and English. Now, I
> can't find this site anymore. I did search google. Do you know such
> site? What's its url?[/color]

The W3C Markup Validation Service <http://validator.w3.or g/> is available in
several languages. Which you get depends on the Accept-Language header your
browser sends.
[color=blue]
> 2- Generally speaking, the most damaging markup code errors are improper
> nesting. Damaging in the sense that it breaks the layout. Any comment on
> this? Do you agree?[/color]

To be honest - I don't care. Validation lets certain errors be identified
easily. If they can be identified they can be fixed. I've never been in a
situation where I had so many errors and such a small timescale that I had
to prioritise them.

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

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Gérard Talbot <newsblahgroup@ gtalbot.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> 1- One day, I stumbled across a website that offers to validate
> webpages. What was really special about that site is that the validation
> service was available in Russian, German, Spanish and English. Now, I
> can't find this site anymore.[/color]

Tha might have been a misunderstandin g. It may have been a phoney
validator.
[color=blue]
> 2- Generally speaking, the most damaging markup code errors are improper
> nesting. Damaging in the sense that it breaks the layout. Any comment on
> this? Do you agree?[/color]

Breaking the layout isn't the worst damage. Improper nesting may or may not
cause serious damage.
[color=blue]
> 3- I've written a webpage explaining what is validation (HTML, CSS and
> also WCAG). - -
> http://www.gtalbot.org/Varia/Validat...lanations.html[/color]

The main problem is that you don't understand what validation is.
See http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html

The first statement in your document is not correct; only a relatively
small minority of pages conforms to the HTML 4.01 specification. The two
strongly emphasized statements in section "HTML 4.01 validation" are wrong,
the second one being very wrong. The rest is not about validation but
confuses validation with other types of checking.

I'm afraid that not a single statement about validation on your page is
factually correct.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

[Stan McCann]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Gérard Talbot <newsblahgroup@ gtalbot.org> wrote in
news:3q2j7fFauf dvU3@uni-berlin.de:
[color=blue]
> 3- I've written a webpage explaining what is validation (HTML, CSS
> and also WCAG). That page is targeting users who know pretty much
> nothing about markup code, web authoring issues, etc. or who know
> little and who might be using FrontPage and lower class products of
> this sort. I'd like to hear some feedback on that page, preferably
> constructive criticisms, suggestions, useful feedback, etc.[/color]

Nice. Can I link to it and use it for my HTML/CSS classes? I teach to
use valid HTML 4.01 and CSS1 with some of CSS2.1. I teach to validate
their code, and you've written some good explanations as to why.

I found one typo. Formating, in the CSS section should have two ts.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: 3 questions on validation

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Gérard Talbot wrote:
[color=blue]
> http://www.gtalbot.org/Varia/Validat...lanations.html[/color]

Hurled me a cookie without warning. That's rude. Of course the
browser now has yet another site in its list from which it will never
accept cookies...

But to the point.

Your page obfuscates the difference between "in conformance to the
specifications" , "properly coded" and "valid". It also drifts into
the use of the term "well formed", which seems to be a specifically
XML-relevant term that doesn't formally apply to HTML.

"valid" is a technical term in HTML/SGML context, and has an exact
meaning. It's what a formal validator tests.

This would become clear if the reader would consult the W3C first:
you do indeed offer relevant links at the end of this section, but it
seems to me that after being befuddled by your introductory text, they
might be so confused as to miss the distinctions.

I'm all in favour of writing valid markup, but that's only one part of
making a web page. The mere fact that the markup is "valid" doesn't
guarantee anything about its quality in other respects.

sorry.

[Gérard Talbot]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Travis Newbury a écrit :[color=blue]
> Gérard Talbot wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Cross-posted to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html and alt.html
>>Followup-to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html[/color]
>
>
> You seem to have missed the point that validation is a "tool" not a
> "goal"
>
> --
> -=tn=-
>[/color]

A tool for developers: correct. But here, in that document, I'm
addressing mere visitors who see a valid HTML 4.01 (or CSS) icon and a
link explaining what this is about.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

Re: 3 questions on validation

David Dorward a écrit :[color=blue]
> Gérard Talbot wrote:
>[/color]

[color=blue][color=green]
>>2- Generally speaking, the most damaging markup code errors are improper
>>nesting. Damaging in the sense that it breaks the layout. Any comment on
>>this? Do you agree?[/color]
>
>
> To be honest - I don't care. Validation lets certain errors be identified
> easily. If they can be identified they can be fixed. I've never been in a
> situation where I had so many errors and such a small timescale that I had
> to prioritise them.[/color]

From a web authoring perspective, I personally share the same policy.
No validation errors on my website and I value validity and conformance
very much.
But from an end-user perspective, the ordinary visitor/end-user is going
to indirectly find that misplaced or overlapping elements is the most
damaging effect because of its visual/graphical obviousness .. and
improper nesting always create differential rendering in browsers
including overlapping.

Such document certainly won't interest readers (ordinary visitors) if I
start explaining how missing alt attribute for <img> or unescaped &'s is
invalid according to formal DTD syntax, you see.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Jukka K. Korpela a écrit :[color=blue]
> Gérard Talbot <newsblahgroup@ gtalbot.org> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>1- One day, I stumbled across a website that offers to validate
>>webpages. What was really special about that site is that the validation
>>service was available in Russian, German, Spanish and English. Now, I
>>can't find this site anymore.[/color]
>
>
> Tha might have been a misunderstandin g. It may have been a phoney
> validator.
>[/color]

I'll do my best to find it again.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>2- Generally speaking, the most damaging markup code errors are improper
>>nesting. Damaging in the sense that it breaks the layout. Any comment on
>>this? Do you agree?[/color]
>
>
> Breaking the layout isn't the worst damage.[/color]

Well, for non-web-authors, it might be. That is what I assumed.

Improper nesting may or may not[color=blue]
> cause serious damage.[/color]

Crashing the browser application certainly is more serious damage ...
but it is also rather rare.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>3- I've written a webpage explaining what is validation (HTML, CSS and
>>also WCAG). - -
>>http://www.gtalbot.org/Varia/Validat...lanations.html[/color]
>
>
> The main problem is that you don't understand what validation is.
> See http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
>[/color]

Wait, wait. I may have written a not-so perfect document but I must
underline here that I am trying to address mere people with that
document. I may not have properly presented the context of such document
in my original post. At the bottom of each page, there will be a valid
HTML 4.01 icon and a valid CSS icon (both the W3C ones) and by each of
these icon, there will be a link offering explanation on what is validation.
[color=blue]
> The first statement in your document is not correct; only a relatively
> small minority of pages conforms to the HTML 4.01 specification.[/color]

Sorry.. I don't understand you. This is my first statement:

"HTML 4.01 is the base language of web pages. The HTML 4.01 language has
specifications which have been set and have been agreed after years of
discussion by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international
consortium that involves the top 500 IT corporations in the world."

The two[color=blue]
> strongly emphasized statements in section "HTML 4.01 validation" are wrong,[/color]

This is the first strongly emphasized statement:
"the best starting step to ensure a webpage appears and works as
expected for all modern web browsers and web rendering software is to
write HTML code in conformance to the specifications. "
I really fail to see what's wrong in there.

[color=blue]
> the second one being very wrong.[/color]

This is the 2nd strongly emphasized statement:
"The clickable W3C HTML 4.01 button-image on webpages provides a way for
any vistor to verify that such webpages are properly coded."
Well, here, I have not linked an icon to a page but when a [W3C HTML
4.01] button-image can be properly linked to the validator, then, I'd
say that people can actually verify that a webpage is properly coded.
A [W3C HTML 4.01] button-image linked to the W3C validator will verify
how such code complies with formal rules of syntax,...

The rest is not about validation but[color=blue]
> confuses validation with other types of checking.
>
> I'm afraid that not a single statement about validation on your page is
> factually correct.
>[/color]

Ok. I heard you.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Stan McCann a écrit :[color=blue]
> Gérard Talbot <newsblahgroup@ gtalbot.org> wrote in
> news:3q2j7fFauf dvU3@uni-berlin.de:
>
>[color=green]
>>3- I've written a webpage explaining what is validation (HTML, CSS
>>and also WCAG). That page is targeting users who know pretty much
>>nothing about markup code, web authoring issues, etc. or who know
>>little and who might be using FrontPage and lower class products of
>>this sort. I'd like to hear some feedback on that page, preferably
>>constructiv e criticisms, suggestions, useful feedback, etc.[/color]
>
>
> Nice. Can I link to it and use it for my HTML/CSS classes? I teach to
> use valid HTML 4.01 and CSS1 with some of CSS2.1. I teach to validate
> their code, and you've written some good explanations as to why.
>
> I found one typo. Formating, in the CSS section should have two ts.
>[/color]

Don't link it too fast. I might change the directory and I certainly
want first to test the content of the document with regulars in this
newsgroup and see more other 2nd opinions.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Michael Winter]

Re: 3 questions on validation

On 29/09/2005 18:56, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
[color=blue]
> Gérard Talbot <newsblahgroup@ gtalbot.org> wrote:[/color]

[snip]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> http://www.gtalbot.org/Varia/Validat...lanations.html[/color][/color]

[snip]
[color=blue]
> The two strongly emphasized statements in section "HTML 4.01
> validation" are wrong, the second one being very wrong.[/color]

That would seem a little unfair.

As I read the first, it says as much as you have at the start of "So
what do I get from validation". Granted, it could be misread by some as
guaranteeing identical rendering across all browsers, but that's not
what it says.

The second seems wrong on technicalities. The usual URL used for
validation of a document relies on the Referer header, which obviously
doesn't cover 'any' visitor, and passing automated validation doesn't
necessarily mean valid, which is what I assume is meant by 'properly coded'.

[snip]
[color=blue]
> I'm afraid that not a single statement about validation on your page
> is factually correct.[/color]

Now that's certainly not true. The first sentence in the fourth paragraph:

"Passing HTML validation does not necessarily guarantee that the
webpage is an overall good webpage or a well designed one."

is quite accurate. :P

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[Gérard Talbot]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Alan J. Flavell a écrit :[color=blue]
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Gérard Talbot wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>http://www.gtalbot.org/Varia/Validat...lanations.html[/color]
>
>
> Hurled me a cookie without warning. That's rude. Of course the
> browser now has yet another site in its list from which it will never
> accept cookies...
>[/color]

That,s most likely my web host server doing that. I don't create/set/use
cookies in my code.
[color=blue]
> But to the point.
>
> Your page obfuscates the difference between "in conformance to the
> specifications" , "properly coded" and "valid".[/color]

Yeah... not too long ago, I asked about this and I probably did not
modify that document.

It also drifts into[color=blue]
> the use of the term "well formed", which seems to be a specifically
> XML-relevant term that doesn't formally apply to HTML.
>[/color]

I was told that. I will change that in my document.
Originally, in my mind, well-formed meant without any improper nesting.
But here, I have to remove this everywhere.. Thanks for pointing me on this.
[color=blue]
> "valid" is a technical term in HTML/SGML context, and has an exact
> meaning. It's what a formal validator tests.
>
> This would become clear if the reader would consult the W3C first:
> you do indeed offer relevant links at the end of this section, but it
> seems to me that after being befuddled by your introductory text, they
> might be so confused as to miss the distinctions.
>[/color]

Ok.
[color=blue]
> I'm all in favour of writing valid markup, but that's only one part of
> making a web page. The mere fact that the markup is "valid" doesn't
> guarantee anything about its quality in other respects.[/color]

Well, isn't that what I am saying too?
"Passing HTML validation does not necessarly guarantee that the webpage
is an overall good webpage or a well designed one."
is in the HTML 4.01 validation section ...

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Harlan Messinger]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Gérard Talbot wrote:[color=blue]
> Travis Newbury a écrit :
>[color=green]
>> Gérard Talbot wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Cross-posted to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html and alt.html
>>> Followup-to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html[/color]
>>
>> You seem to have missed the point that validation is a "tool" not a
>> "goal"[/color]
>
> A tool for developers: correct. But here, in that document, I'm
> addressing mere visitors who see a valid HTML 4.01 (or CSS) icon and a
> link explaining what this is about.[/color]

Why is a visitor interested at all? The visitor only cares if the page
looks OK and is usable. What would be useful would be a logo announcing
NON-conformance, to be place on pages with invalid code, so that users
having trouble with a page, when they see the logo, will say, "Oh, no
wonder, the code's invalid. No surprise that my browser isn't displaying
it correctly."

[Stan McCann]

Re: 3 questions on validation

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla .ac.uk> wrote in
news:Pine.LNX.4 .62.05092919134 20.16136@ppepc5 6.ph.gla.ac.uk:
[color=blue]
> I'm all in favour of writing valid markup, but that's only one part
> of making a web page. The mere fact that the markup is "valid"
> doesn't guarantee anything about its quality in other respects.
>
> sorry.
>[/color]

You've nothing to be sorry for stating your comments, especially when
you give constructive criticism as Gerard asked for. As usual, Alan,
you have some good things to say. This last comment caught my eye in
that he does mention this, just not real forcefully.

Personally, I found the information put together in one place good and
hope to use it with my teaching. I'm sure it will get cleaned up and
be even better and more useful with the commentary he is getting.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

[Gérard Talbot]

Re: 3 questions on validation

Harlan Messinger a écrit :[color=blue]
> Gérard Talbot wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Travis Newbury a écrit :
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Gérard Talbot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cross-posted to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html and alt.html
>>>> Followup-to: comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html
>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to have missed the point that validation is a "tool" not a
>>> "goal"[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> >[/color]
>[color=green]
>> A tool for developers: correct. But here, in that document, I'm
>> addressing mere visitors who see a valid HTML 4.01 (or CSS) icon and a
>> link explaining what this is about.[/color]
>
>
> Why is a visitor interested at all? The visitor only cares if the page
> looks OK and is usable. What would be useful would be a logo announcing
> NON-conformance, to be place on pages with invalid code, so that users
> having trouble with a page, when they see the logo, will say, "Oh, no
> wonder, the code's invalid. No surprise that my browser isn't displaying
> it correctly."[/color]

Actually more and more browsers are doing that in various ways, are
announcing erroneous or problematic code which may affect the rendering
in pages in various ways.

Icab with its frown icon, Dillo browser apparently (I have not verified
their claim), Amaya 9.2.1 does that indicating clearly the parsing
errors, HTML Tidy (more of a linter but nevertheless), as a Firefox
extension, will report unknown elements, unknown attributes, improper
nesting, wrong code, etc.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me