SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50
  1. #26
    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

  2. #27
    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.

  3. #28
    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

  4. #29
    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..

  5. #30
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use W3C, to the guy who said it's old, well, most web stuff is old tech.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I like the WDG validator because you can validate a whole site.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    W3C - Better known

  8. #33
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,378
    Mentioned
    72 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.

  9. #34
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,263
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 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

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

  10. #35
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    1,378
    Mentioned
    72 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.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard jimbo_dk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,261
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you're a member of SP, you are a geek. Period.
    Winners Respond. Losers React.
    Singapore Web Designer

  12. #37
    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
    simon,
    then which preset for XHTML 1.1? (validator.nu)
    There is no preset for 1.1 yet, but 1.0 + Ruby is close enough in practice.
    Quote Originally Posted by daniiswara View Post
    is it possible to add validome or validator.nu links on web-dev toolbar opera 9.x? (since you work for opera...[?])
    tq
    I don't know about the web-dev toolbar, but as for the "Validate" feature in the context menu, just go to opera:config#UserPrefs|ValidationURL and type in http://validator.nu/
    Simon Pieters

  13. #38
    SitePoint Enthusiast slowtwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kelso, Scotland, UK
    Posts
    70
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My preference is with w3c
    "Obstacles are those things you see
    when you take your eyes off the goal"

  14. #39
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Nelson BC
    Posts
    2,310
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I use IE to validate my html

  15. #40
    SitePoint Enthusiast w!ll's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    73
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was using w3c validator till now, but i think that validome.org is better.
    Gumball 3000 Rally Pictures
    Adauga site (Web Directory - only for romanian websites)

  16. #41
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by w!ll View Post
    I was using w3c validator till now, but i think that validome.org is better.
    yesterday I found my site passed (xhtml) by validome but not valid by w3c validator (I fixed now)

    but sorry I forgot the message..something related to tricky php script on mimetype..that shows " \\n " [for new line?] on the top left header?

  17. #42
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I found some sites with similar " id " which got "valid" by validome but "invalid" by w3c

    and also <abbr title="..." rel="nofollow">...</abbr>,
    validome said valid and invalid on w3c

  18. #43
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    another one..

    with "en" document declaration on the header..
    <span xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">...some french words...</span> was invalid on W3C validator, but valid (with no remarks) on Validome.org

  19. #44
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That should be valid for XHTML 1.0, but not for HTML 4.01 (which doesn't have an xml:lang attribute) or XHTML 1.1 (which doesn't have a lang attribute).
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  20. #45
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    sorry..
    forgot that line, It happen on XHTML 1.1
    my friend told me that his blog served as xml+xhtml (using server-side php script) for capable browser other than IE
    on IE, it will rendered as XHTML 1.0 (text/html)
    and he did the same thing for my blog

    so validome was wrong [?]
    Last edited by daniiswara; May 27, 2008 at 03:49.

  21. #46
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, Validome was wrong if it accepted the lang attribute with an XHTML 1.1 doctype. I haven't checked Validome's Accept header, but it's possible that the content negotiation script on your friend's blog served XHTML 1.0 as text/html to Validome and XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml to the W3C validator. In that case, they would both be right.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  22. #47
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    Yes, Validome was wrong if it accepted the lang attribute with an XHTML 1.1 doctype. I haven't checked Validome's Accept header, but it's possible that the content negotiation script on your friend's blog served XHTML 1.0 as text/html to Validome and XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml to the W3C validator. In that case, they would both be right.
    Yup..that content negotiation problem..I guess

    so how to serve different (3 or more) languages in this case for both capable browsers and IE with sticky XHTML?

  23. #48
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Unless you really have different versions of the content, then content negotiation is pointless. Especially pointless is 'content type negotiation' where you serve the same 'XHTML' markup and just vary the Content-Type HTTP header.

    Why is it pointless? Because if you can serve it as text/html, then you're not using anything that XHTML offers over HTML anyway, so you might as well be honest and use an HTML doctype. In fact, you're probably degrading the experience for some users with modern browsers, since they get XML and some browsers don't render that incrementally as they do with HTML.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  24. #49
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Agree with you Tom,

    I have some post in Bahasa Indonesia that we should choose HTML than XHTML.
    IMO, XHTML is just a trial for me..

  25. #50
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    just another report:

    on DOCTYPE XHTML 1.0 Transitional, found on a Joomla blog:
    Code:
    <noscript><a href="http://www.example.com/myblogs/index.html"><span lang="id_ID" xml:lang="id_ID">Indonesian</span></a>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.example.com/myblogs/index.html"><span lang="en_GB" xml:lang="en_GB">English</span></a>&nbsp;</noscript>
    was valid by W3C validator
    but failed by Validome.org


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
  •