W3C or Validome? Which one should I use?

**daniiswara** · May 5, 2008 18:30

Based on http://www.validome.org/lang/en/errors/ALL, which x/html validator should I use today?

**dbr** · May 5, 2008 19:34

Thanks for the into to validome, that was interesting. I've been pretty happy with w3c, so I'll be curious to see what others have to say too.

**Dan Schulz** · May 6, 2008 00:22

I'd stick with the W3C validator, but there's no harm in checking in others once in a while as long as they show the same results and are accurate.

**C. Ankerstjerne** · May 6, 2008 00:43

Most, if not all, the 'errors' reported for the W3C validator are for functionality which is either archaic or serves no real purpose. Obviously, the page you link to is an advertisement, and not a realistic comparison. I'm sure it would be possible to find some errors in that validator you link to as well.

**daniiswara** · May 6, 2008 07:40

I'm fan of both validators

but for a while I'll stick with validome..

from their footers:

w3c: v0.8.2
validome: v2.6.9 - 24.4.2008

another sources: "validome" in w3c - public mail list

**zcorpan** · May 6, 2008 10:31

FWIW, I use http://validator.nu/

**r937** · May 6, 2008 13:39

Originally Posted by zcorpan

FWIW, I use http://validator.nu/

i don't like it

i validated my home page and it said:

Info: HTML 4.01 Strict doctype seen. Using the schema for XHTML 1.0 Strict.

what's up with that???

it gave me no errors (i run a tight ship) but if it were really using XHTML it shoulda flagged my IMG and BR tags for ~not~ using the closing slash

<img ... /> is valid xhtml, but i use <img ...>

**drhowarddrfine** · May 6, 2008 20:59

Originally Posted by r937

i don't like it

i validated my home page and it said:
what's up with that???

Yeah but can your validator handle html5?

I forgot where that validator stands but it's experimental still but it handles a lot of the newer stuff. I've switched my doctypes to the new version and can only validate for that there.

**AutisticCuckoo** · May 6, 2008 22:46

Originally Posted by r937

what's up with that???

That validator is broken, since it doesn't honour the DTD declared in the document.

Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine

Yeah but can your validator handle html5?

No validator can do that, since the HTML5 specification (thankfully) hasn't been released as a recommendation yet.

**zcorpan** · May 7, 2008 00:05

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

That validator is broken, since it doesn't honour the DTD declared in the document.

For text/html, it looks at the doctype declaration to decide which schema to use (and whether to report HTML4-specific parsing errors or not -- e.g. it complains about "<br/>" for HTML4 but not for HTML5).

**drhowarddrfine** · May 7, 2008 07:30

Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo

That validator is broken, since it doesn't honour the DTD declared in the document.

No validator can do that, since the HTML5 specification (thankfully) hasn't been released as a recommendation yet.

As Simon noted above, it does handle html5 to some extent. How far, I don't know.

**zcorpan** · May 7, 2008 00:02

Originally Posted by r937

i validated my home page and it said:

Info: HTML 4.01 Strict doctype seen. Using the schema for XHTML 1.0 Strict.

what's up with that???

XHTML 1.0 Strict is a reformulation of HTML 4.01 Strict in XML. Hence, a schema written for XHTML 1.0 Strict should work perfectly well for HTML 4.01 Strict if you put an HTML parser before the validation layer instead of an XML parser, which is what Validator.nu does.

(Unfortunately, XHTML 1.0 is not an exact reformulation -- there are some minor but subtle differences introduced in the form of new spec fixes (e.g. <html id>) and new spec bugs (e.g. <form name> not present in the XHTML 1.0 DTD).

**daniiswara** · May 6, 2008 20:00

Originally Posted by zcorpan

FWIW, I use http://validator.nu/

too different results are displayed [??]

**zcorpan** · May 7, 2008 00:08

Originally Posted by daniiswara

too different results are displayed [??]

I don't follow. Too different from what?

**daniiswara** · May 11, 2008 01:15

Originally Posted by zcorpan

I don't follow. Too different from what?

I meant..it really 'too'

I add this line to my web developer - fx (firefox) extension:

Code:

http://validator.nu/?doc=

for the http://www.w3.org/ results (xhtml 1.0 strict):

w3c validator: passed

validome: valid

validator.nu: found some errors (automatically mode; no preset) ?? (http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F)

**zcorpan** · May 11, 2008 07:46

Originally Posted by daniiswara

for the http://www.w3.org/ results (xhtml 1.0 strict):

w3c validator: passed

validome: valid

validator.nu: found some errors (automatically mode; no preset) ?? (http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F)

Originally Posted by Validator.nu

Info: The Content-Type was application/xhtml+xml. Using the XML parser (not resolving external entities).

...

Info: Using the preset for XHTML5+ARIA, SVG 1.1 plus MathML 2.0 (experimental) based on the root namespace.

For XML, Validator.nu looks at the root namespace -- not the doctype -- to decide which schema to validate against. It defaults to XHTML5 instead of XHTML 1.0 Strict for the XHTML namespace. If you want to check against XHTML 1.0 Strict you have to choose it in the preset list yourself:

http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%...2Fall-html4%2F

**Dan Schulz** · May 7, 2008 07:20

I think daniiswara meant two, not too, Simon.

**c55** · May 11, 2008 15:34

I use W3C and it works pretty well.....

**jimbo_dk** · May 11, 2008 21:19

This is an extremely geeky discussion

I'm just sticking with W3C though.

**daniiswara** · May 12, 2008 01:57

jimbo dk,
I'm not a geek

just want to know which xhtml validator is better..

**Sega** · May 12, 2008 14:40

Originally Posted by daniiswara

jimbo dk,
I'm not a geek

just want to know which xhtml validator is better..

lol... If you think about it, were all kinda of geekish.

**r937** · May 12, 2008 19:15

Originally Posted by Sega

lol... If you think about it, were all kinda of geekish.

only the geekish display validator badges

those who don't, aren't

**Sega** · May 12, 2008 21:43

Originally Posted by r937

only the geekish display validator badges

those who don't, aren't

lol

On those terms I use to be a geek.

**Stormrider** · May 12, 2008 01:00

My personal favourite is totalvalidator.com - I love it. Does some automatic accessibility checks as well (of course you still need to check manually for a lot of points), spell checking, checks for dead links, and can take a screenshot in different browsers as well. I also have the firefox extension for it so I can validate a page with a single click.