SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    W3C or Validome? Which one should I use?

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

  2. #2
    SitePoint Addict dbr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Tucked away in the mountains...
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    "Three components make an entrepreneur:
    the person, the idea, and the resources to make it happen."
    Anita Roddick ~British entrepreneur
    dbr founder of: ProximityCast.com

  3. #3
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,495
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy C. Ankerstjerne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    2,692
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Christian Ankerstjerne
    <p<strong<abbr/HTML/ 4 teh win</>
    <>In Soviet Russia, website codes you!

  5. #5
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    updated tools

    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

  6. #6
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    FWIW, I use http://validator.nu/
    Simon Pieters

  7. #7
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,017
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    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 ...>
    r937.com | rudy.ca | Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  8. #8
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    what's up with that???
    That validator is broken, since it doesn't honour the DTD declared in the document.

    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
    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.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  10. #10
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    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).
    Simon Pieters

  11. #11
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    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).
    Simon Pieters

  13. #13
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    too different results are displayed [??]

  14. #14
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by daniiswara View Post
    too different results are displayed [??]
    I don't follow. Too different from what?
    Simon Pieters

  15. #15
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zcorpan View Post
    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


  16. #16
    bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,670
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by daniiswara View Post
    for the http://www.w3.org/ results (xhtml 1.0 strict):
    • w3c validator: passed

    • validome: valid

    Quote 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
    Simon Pieters

  17. #17
    In memoriam gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy Dan Schulz's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, Illinois
    Posts
    15,495
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think daniiswara meant two, not too, Simon.

  18. #18
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use W3C and it works pretty well.....

  19. #19
    SitePoint Wizard jimbo_dk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,261
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is an extremely geeky discussion I'm just sticking with W3C though.
    Winners Respond. Losers React.
    Singapore Web Designer

  20. #20
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    jimbo dk,
    I'm not a geek
    just want to know which xhtml validator is better..

  21. #21
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,376
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by daniiswara View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,017
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sega View Post
    lol... If you think about it, were all kinda of geekish.
    only the geekish display validator badges

    those who don't, aren't

    r937.com | rudy.ca | Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  23. #23
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,376
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by r937 View Post
    only the geekish display validator badges

    those who don't, aren't

    lol

    On those terms I use to be a geek.

  24. #24
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  25. #25
    SitePoint Wizard jimbo_dk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,261
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just checked out TotalValidator.com. Seems to be very nice. The report is laid out in quite a helpful way as well.
    Winners Respond. Losers React.
    Singapore Web Designer


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •