SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50
  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 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 [??]

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    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

  11. #11
    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

  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 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

  13. #13
    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

  14. #14
    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.

  15. #15
    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.

  16. #16
    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 drhowarddrfine View Post
    As Simon noted above, it does handle html5 to some extent. How far, I don't know.
    How can it, when there is no HTML5 yet?
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  17. #17
    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
    How can it, when there is no HTML5 yet?
    The same way the W3C CSS validator can validate CSS 2.1 or CSS3...

    HTML5 very much exists, is at draft stage, and is being actively implemented in at least IE, Mozilla, Opera and WebKit. Some things are even widely used on the Web already. Pretending that it doesn't exist is not particularly productive.
    Simon Pieters

  18. #18
    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 zcorpan View Post
    Pretending that it doesn't exist is not particularly productive.
    Nor is pretending that it is an established standard which it's important to validate against.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  19. #19
    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
    Nor is pretending that it is an established standard which it's important to validate against.
    I can't remember claiming either of those things...

    HTML 5 is not yet an established standard.

    It's not important to validate against HTML 5.

    However, I think it is useful for me to do so. YMMV.
    Simon Pieters

  20. #20
    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


  21. #21
    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

  22. #22
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yup Simon,
    I have to change my web-dev preset links
    (it should be automatically - my next request for ur validator.nu)

    even w3c, they didn't pass the test

    http://juicystudio.com/ (passed by validome):
    but using validator.nu (http://validator.nu/?doc=http&#37;3A%2F%...2Fall-html4%2F)
    I got this warning:
    Code:
    #
    Warning: skipping entity: [dtd]
    At line 8, column 109
    ml1-strict.dtd">↩<htm
    http://samkauffmann.com/ (valid XHTML 1.0 Strict by w3c and validome):
    some errors using validator.nu (http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%...2Fall-html4%2F)

    which validator is more strict?

    for http://acjs.net/weblog/ (valid XHTML 1.1 + MathML 2.0 + SVG 1.1 by validome)
    and
    http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/ (valid XHTML 1.1 + MathML 2.0 + SVG 1.1 by validome)
    which preset should I choose (on validator.nu)?

    tq

  23. #23
    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
    yup Simon,
    I have to change my web-dev preset links
    (it should be automatically - my next request for ur validator.nu)
    It's not mine. Although it is a deliberate design decision to not look at the doctype in XML. The advocacy is that you shouldn't use a doctype at all in XML.

    Quote Originally Posted by daniiswara View Post
    even w3c, they didn't pass the test
    Indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by daniiswara View Post
    http://juicystudio.com/ (passed by validome):
    but using validator.nu (http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%...2Fall-html4%2F)
    I got this warning:
    Code:
    #
    Warning: skipping entity: [dtd]
    At line 8, column 109
    ml1-strict.dtd">↩<htm
    It means that it doesn't process the DTD that the doctype references (for entity declarations and default attributes).

    Quote Originally Posted by daniiswara View Post
    http://samkauffmann.com/ (valid XHTML 1.0 Strict by w3c and validome):
    some errors using validator.nu (http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%...2Fall-html4%2F)

    which validator is more strict?
    The difference is in whether to process the DTD or not (Validator.nu doesn't by default). Processing the DTD is optional per XML and so relying on it being processed is unsafe on the Web.

    Quote Originally Posted by daniiswara View Post
    for http://acjs.net/weblog/ (valid XHTML 1.1 + MathML 2.0 + SVG 1.1 by validome)
    and
    http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/ (valid XHTML 1.1 + MathML 2.0 + SVG 1.1 by validome)
    which preset should I choose (on validator.nu)?
    One of the presets that have "XHTML" and "MathML" in the name. I guess "XHTML 1.0 Strict, Ruby, SVG 1.1, MathML 2.0 + IRI" is the closest at the moment.
    Simon Pieters

  24. #24
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    228
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use W3C and it works pretty well.....

  25. #25
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    simon,
    then which preset for XHTML 1.1? (validator.nu)
    is it possible to add validome or validator.nu links on web-dev toolbar opera 9.x? (since you work for opera...[?])
    tq


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
  •