HTML Validation software

4dept — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:57:20 +0000

I'm using "HTML Candy" - http://www.anetto.com.ru
It is more useful than HTML Validator.

Busy — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 23:39:52 +0000

I get a lot of hits (80-90%) from search engines to my HTML site, and the most popular page, with nothing even coming close to second is the 'bad html' page.
People are looking to tidy up their code

disaster-master — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 15:49:05 +0000

Such an interesting thread. And to think that only one year ago there were people dissing XHTML. I wonder what a thread like this would be like in 2004??

Validation is a tool and should be used from the very beginning when building a site. You will be glad that you did in the long run. It's not that hard if you put your mind to it.......and just do it!

"No bagel, no bagel"

mmi — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 07:44:21 +0000

Fwiw, I agree (and I expect just about everyone does) that validation is important. I think the issue I (and perhaps others) have is with the idea that a page is "bad" if it doesn't completely pass the W3C validator. As I said earlier, I think you need to look at why it doesn't pass and what the consequences are.

Quote: why do you type mme?

I would think the answer is rather obvious: so people will ask mme why I do it?

Suzanne — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 05:20:39 +0000

On why validation is so important -- http://www.w3.org/People/Bos/DesignGuide/introduction.html

Suzanne — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 03:56:21 +0000

I get about 50% of my hits from Google. About 35% are blogs, personal sites, bookmarks, et cetera. The rest are other search engines and directories.

That's another thing about valid code -- it makes it MUCH easier for search engines to find your content and therefore to index your content and get you listed.

Mmi, you may have issues with "website" v. "web site" because Google throws out duplicate results, but I'm not sure -- check Google for "web site" and "website" alone, then choose which one is in common use. Of course, the more focused your content is, the better.

spor — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 03:47:52 +0000

I have just one question,(probably been asked a hundred times) but why do you type mme?

mmi — Sun, 03 Aug 2003 00:18:10 +0000

Quote: Originally posted by Pop

If a vast majority of the site Owners or Webmasters now on the WWW have not taken enough care to write good code what makes anyone think they'll get the urge to do so now, especially the big name sites.

I think it's an "invalid" exaggeration to describe code that doesn't validate as "bad."

Pages that don't validate at http://validator.w3.org/:

http://www.att.com/
http://www.citigroup.com/
http://www.ge.com/
http://www.gm.com/
http://www.hp.com/
http://www.honeywell.com/
http://www.ibm.com/
http://www.intel.com/
http://www.jpmorgan.com/
http://www.3m.com/
http://www.yale.edu/
http://www.harvard.edu/
http://www.berkeley.edu/
http://www.umich.edu/
http://www.berkeley.edu/

Is their code "bad"?

And code that does validate may not display as desired. E.g., on http://www.webmasterdisaster.com/ , & #8221; (without the space) doesn't come up as a quotation mark in mmy Mozilla browser. It does here in the forum ( ” ) -- dunno why.

There are other flaws in the front page of this site I would point to as a copyeditor. One is that the author uses 8221 on both sides of the quote in

Quote: Go ahead, do a search for ”webmaster disaster” and see for yourself.

Moreover, there are weaknesses in the use of punctuation. Could this page consequently be described as "bad"? Would a copywriter or editor who received payment for working on it be subject to civil litigation?

I don't really buy the argument about validation being such a determinative boost in SEO. "Disaster master" isn't a string that is found very often anyway (121 in Google). With invalid code, mmy site lists third out of 6080 for "multi media information." I don't expect forcing validation would bump mme to #1.

And perhaps more importantly, why would a surfer be looking for either term? I'm second for "editing websites," but not listed for "editing web sites." I tried putting that in mmy meta tag; didn't seem to help. Maybe I should try again. Or perhaps I should toss editing standards in the trash and use it both ways in the text on that page. I suppose I'd take the issue more seriously if the hundreds of people who know ALL ABOUT my high-quality, affordable service weren't so determined to keep their fifty bucks and their sloppy copy.

Btw, no one has ever contacted mme saying they found mmy site on Google. I suppose the content needs improvement, but I have to wonder about the audience.

Here's a discussion of the code on php.net:

http://blogs.phparch.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=65

Busy — Sat, 02 Aug 2003 23:50:14 +0000

Pop, to me, XHTML is HTML Strict (which many don't realise there are 3 flavors of HTML - transitional, strict and frames) and the normal HTML is HTML transitional.
HTML is a very sloppy code and IE supports this very well, but Netscape and others don't, and in some cases wont even display anything.
XHTML (transitional) is how HTML should of been set out all those years ago, all lower case, values quoted, proper nesting of tags and all tags to be closed (single tags are a bit much) and thats about all there is to XHTML.
But XHTML Strict is more CSS flavored and does away with a few tags which opens the way for new stuff (CSS).
If you want to get really keen you can use XML to create your own tag sets, 90% of people would never use the XML side of it but even some WYSIWYG editors are using XHTML tags and/or option to convert and validate to them.
Since XHTML is a lot cleaner (code wise) it has more change of displaying on more browsers, it still wont display the same in all as not all the browsers support enough of eachothers stuff for that to happen but there is more chance it will.
Also using XHTML with CSS you can get your load speeds down as well.
You'll probably find 80% of webmasters out there use an editor of some sort, of which doesn't support XHTML and the operator proably only knows the basics of HTML so knows no better.

Suzanne — Sat, 02 Aug 2003 20:16:22 +0000

espn.com
wired.com

Many larger corporations in other countries are embracing XHTML as an advantage. Don't write it off yet.

RSS uses XML, so does a number of other industry specific internal applications that then generate XHTML for the web, using XML for their print documents.

Heart of hearts is a fine thing, but when it comes to business, it's the head of heads that counts.