I've heard how important it is to have your pages validate.
But I have more trouble making it happen. It seems nothing will validate. Heck, I've been using the HTML Validator Extension with Firefox and it says this very page I'm reading isn't validating!! 
Most sites I go to don't seem to validate either.
Futhermore, it seems any script (I have one on each page of my site to log visitors) will cause errors also.
Is the validating thing just over rated? Or is there a way to achieve Perfect Validation? In my oppinion the validating is overrated.
You should still try to write valid pages, however 95% valid is good enough for me.
The problems with invalid pages are: they might display wrongly in certain browsers and blind people's site-reading software might not be able to read it propperly.
In certain pages i have ended up using exploits to solve the problems that i have and they usually arent "valid". Also, the doctype tag, which i seriously struggle to find a use for (and which in some cases makes my page display wrongly), is needed for the page to be valid.
The W3C validator extension for Firefox isn't that accurate after all. For the most accurate results, you can validate at W3C's website: http://validator.w3.org/ In Opera U need to press: Ctrl+Alt+V to validate page in w3.org validator.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| In my oppinion the validating is overrated. |
Wrong.Whats the point of validating???
All the cool kids are doing it.
| Marston wrote: |
| LukeakaDanish wrote: | | In my oppinion the validating is overrated. |
Wrong. |
Marston...that makes no sence - my oppinoin is that validating is OVERRATED, and you cant say "wrong" to that - its an oppinion. (you should say "i disagree")
If you actually want to take part in this discussion, post a slightly longer post, with at least a couple of points on why keeping your pages valid is the most important thing about your website.
kthxValidating is a bit overrated (in my opinion), but it is always better to validate your pages. And, the DOCTYPE is used to identify XML documents. As all the future applications are going to be pwered by XML, DOCTYPE plays a very important part as it generalizes the parsing process and hence adds cross-application support for the XML Parsing libraries. The W3C validator uses the same XHTML parser as it does for XML with a different DOCTYPE (I think -> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd) I am not sure of the address.. i used to type loads of HTML a bit back. Ok, Moving past the theory of necessity of validating.................
This page, HERE has 2 errors, according to the WC3 Validator. Both have to do with a visitor logging script I have.
| Quote: |
delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here .
...pg='+escape(window.location)+'"></scr'+'ipt>'); |
and
| Quote: |
end tag for element "SCR" which is not open .
...pg='+escape(window.location)+'"></scr'+'ipt>'); |
.
Can anyone tell me just what it means, can I fix it, should I fix it or does it matter? the w3c validator doesnt really understand javascript. I dont think you need to worry, as the problem which it mentions doesnt seem to be relevant to the javascript expression.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Marston wrote: | | LukeakaDanish wrote: | | In my oppinion the validating is overrated. |
Wrong. |
Marston...that makes no sence - my oppinoin is that validating is OVERRATED, and you cant say "wrong" to that - its an oppinion. (you should say "i disagree")
If you actually want to take part in this discussion, post a slightly longer post, with at least a couple of points on why keeping your pages valid is the most important thing about your website.
kthx |
Marston probably just disagreed to your opinion, and so said "wrong." (By the way, I think validation is important.) Saying wrong is about the same as saying I don't agree. Anyways, most people, like you did, would assume "wrong" simply means "I don't agree." And while it's true that Marston shoud've backed his opinion, maybe he just didn't have enough time to do it...
Validating pages is important depending on your point of view. When you've worked with hand-coding webpages, and gone through hacks, and fired up a few dozen web browsers just to make sure the same page looks the same, you would most likely find out. If this was a big happy perfect world, everyone's pages would validate completely, without errors, and the brower developers would design their browsers against the coding specifications that are put in place, with everyone following the same specifications. Then, there won't be use for loads of hacks anymore, serious developers won't have to fire up dozens of browsers anymore, and we could all spend less time coding a website, knowing that we won't have inconsistant errors slowing us down anymore. As you see, if everyone considered the specifications put in place currently by the W3C right now, life in the web developtment medium, and life of the average Joe browsing the web would be much better. | Phil wrote: |
Ok, Moving past the theory of necessity of validating.................
This page, HERE has 2 errors, according to the WC3 Validator. Both have to do with a visitor logging script I have.
| Quote: | delimiter "'" invalid: only S separators and TAGC allowed here .
...pg='+escape(window.location)+'"></scr'+'ipt>'); |
and
| Quote: | end tag for element "SCR" which is not open .
...pg='+escape(window.location)+'"></scr'+'ipt>'); |
.
Can anyone tell me just what it means, can I fix it, should I fix it or does it matter? |
You should change the order of the CDATA section and the HTML comment. If its the other way round (like yours), the CDATA section will be inside the HTML comment, therefore the W3C validator (a SGML parser) will not recognize it.
| Code: |
//<![CDATA[
<!--
document.write('<scr'+'ipt type="text/javascript" src="/twatch/jslogger.php?ref='+( document["referrer"]==null?'':escape(blockedReferrer ))+'&pg='+escape(window.location)+'"><\/scr'+'ipt>');
//-->
//]]>
|
EDIT: typo
