This is an extremely geeky discussionI'm just sticking with W3C though.
| SitePoint Sponsor |
This is an extremely geeky discussion
Winners Respond. Losers React.
Singapore Web Designer
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.
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
jimbo dk,
I'm not a geek
just want to know which xhtml validator is better..
I use W3C, to the guy who said it's old, well, most web stuff is old tech.
I like the WDG validator because you can validate a whole site.
W3C - Better known
lol... If you think about it, were all kinda of geekish.Originally Posted by daniiswara
jimbo dk,
I'm not a geek
just want to know which xhtml validator is better..
only the geekish display validator badgeslol... If you think about it, were all kinda of geekish.
those who don't, aren't
lolonly the geekish display validator badges
those who don't, aren't
On those terms I use to be a geek.
If you're a member of SP, you are a geek. Period.
Winners Respond. Losers React.
Singapore Web Designer
There is no preset for 1.1 yet, but 1.0 + Ruby is close enough in practice.
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
My preference is with w3c
"Obstacles are those things you see
when you take your eyes off the goal"
I use IE to validate my html
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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..
just another report:
on DOCTYPE XHTML 1.0 Transitional, found on a Joomla blog:
was valid by W3C validatorCode:<noscript><a href="http://www.example.com/myblogs/index.html"><span lang="id_ID" xml:lang="id_ID">Indonesian</span></a> <a href="http://www.example.com/myblogs/index.html"><span lang="en_GB" xml:lang="en_GB">English</span></a> </noscript>
but failed by Validome.org
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks