Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > W3C for amateurs?

Reply
Thread Tools

W3C for amateurs?

 
 
Moon Goddess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2007
I'm a rank amateur and can only do very simple web pages so far.

I've been checking one of my pages with http://validator.w3.org/
and it's horrible, like 157 errors, not even what they call a valid page,
etc.

Yet it shows up fine in Seamonkey.

But for us amateurs, is there some kind of checker software that can not
only check our web pages, but CORRECT them to compliance with W3C?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Blinky the Shark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2007
Moon Goddess wrote:
> I'm a rank amateur and can only do very simple web pages so far.
>
> I've been checking one of my pages with http://validator.w3.org/
> and it's horrible, like 157 errors, not even what they call a valid page,
> etc.
>
> Yet it shows up fine in Seamonkey.
>
> But for us amateurs, is there some kind of checker software that can not
> only check our web pages, but CORRECT them to compliance with W3C?


Brain 1.0.


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
why?
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-18-2007

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:25:10 -0500, Moon Goddess wrote:

>I'm a rank amateur and can only do very simple web pages so far.


Seems to be the same in usenet -
you didn't include a URL for the site
or the validation report,
no idea of what any of the 157 messages are.

>I've been checking one of my pages with http://validator.w3.org/
>and it's horrible, like 157 errors, not even what they call a valid page,


Worse than usual, most likely very amusing if it's all errors and not
some warnings.

Guessing mostly,

alt for images,

x isn't allowed here,

dreamweaver or frontpage custom bits.

>etc.
>
>Yet it shows up fine in Seamonkey.


It's the same in MSIE, Opera, Lynx, Safari and so on?

So how much work is SM or any other browser doing to allow / correct for
the validation errors.

>But for us amateurs, is there some kind of checker software that can not


Not really, Lint/HTML Tidy, but you have know HTML to bable to fix
validation issues or not and what some automatic code tidy app may do.

http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/

You can tidy up the code but not fill in what's missing in any case.

If you use (almost) any app to draw pages on screen, the HTML produced
is likely never to validate.

>only check our web pages, but CORRECT them to compliance with W3C?


Are you maybe wanting / expecting the wrong thing from the validator? As
a rank amateur it sounds as though you are.

From alt.html,
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
HTML validation” is a good tool, but just a tool

Getting Started
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/

There are lists of other links posted every so often, search
http://groups.google.com/group/24hou...elpdesk/topics

Me
 
Reply With Quote
 
The poster formerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2007
Moon Goddess wrote:
> I'm a rank amateur and can only do very simple web pages so far.
>
> I've been checking one of my pages with http://validator.w3.org/
> and it's horrible, like 157 errors, not even what they call a valid page,
> etc.
>
> Yet it shows up fine in Seamonkey.
>
> But for us amateurs, is there some kind of checker software that can not
> only check our web pages, but CORRECT them to compliance with W3C?
>


This is not an online validator, but try
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Moon Goddess
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-21-2007
The poster formerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :

> Moon Goddess wrote:
>> I'm a rank amateur and can only do very simple web pages so far.
>>
>> I've been checking one of my pages with http://validator.w3.org/
>> and it's horrible, like 157 errors, not even what they call a valid
>> page, etc.
>>
>> Yet it shows up fine in Seamonkey.
>>
>> But for us amateurs, is there some kind of checker software that can
>> not only check our web pages, but CORRECT them to compliance with
>> W3C?
>>

>
> This is not an online validator, but try
> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/
>


Thanks.

Does Google downgrade your ranking if the site is crummy html-wise?

 
Reply With Quote
 
why?
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2007

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:28:31 -0500, Moon Goddess wrote:

>The poster formerly known as 'The poster formerly known as Nina DiBoy'
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote :
>
>> Moon Goddess wrote:
>>> I'm a rank amateur and can only do very simple web pages so far.
>>>
>>> I've been checking one of my pages with http://validator.w3.org/


So what is the URL? It would help a lot by seeing the validation report
and see if there is anything that needs fixed compared to making things
neat tidy and validated.

>>> and it's horrible, like 157 errors, not even what they call a valid
>>> page, etc.
>>>
>>> Yet it shows up fine in Seamonkey.
>>>
>>> But for us amateurs, is there some kind of checker software that can
>>> not only check our web pages, but CORRECT them to compliance with
>>> W3C?
>>>

>>
>> This is not an online validator, but try
>> http://www.htmlvalidator.com/lite/
>>

>
>Thanks.
>
>Does Google downgrade your ranking if the site is crummy html-wise?

No, There is info on Google on how it ranks pages and sites with rank
checking tools,
http://www.google.com/search?q=google+page+rank

Google PageRank
http://www.google.com/technology/

Crummy HTML only makes the browser do more work by tring to account for
errors. You are more likely to put people off from the site all on your
own by making simple common mistakes.

Me
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
W3C validation Fredrik Elestedt ASP .Net 15 08-09-2005 08:38 AM
Whos wrong - Moz or W3C? user@domain.invalid Firefox 6 10-16-2004 11:13 PM
Problem with w3c validator in script definition of doPostBack Alfonso Alvarez ASP .Net 2 05-13-2004 07:47 AM
W3C Validator Icon and W3C Valdiator page Frank HTML 9 05-03-2004 09:32 AM
A curious behaviour with an URL on the W3C Griffure Firefox 0 08-11-2003 11:46 AM



Advertisments