SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 145
  1. #1
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    When is website validation not necessary

    What does it mean when your website does not validate?
    I know what it means but I'm confused because people say your website must pass validation.

    Even the adobe website does not pass validation.

    So if your website does not pass validation does that mean something is wrong with it?

    I recently created a website with hacks for IE, the had cause the validation to fail, should I be worry about that even though everything is working perfectly in Firefox, IE 6,7 and Safari and Opera.

    Please advised. When do you ignore validation?

    IC

  2. #2
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    What does it mean when your website does not validate?
    It means the markup is of poor quality.
    It's basically the same as if a written document has spelling errors or grammar errors in it. Readers may still understand it, but there is always a risk for confusion and misunderstanding. And the more errors you have, the greater the risk.

    Other than that, it depends very much what sort of invalid markup you have. An invalid attribute is unlikely to cause any problems, whereas a missing end tag could cause the document to render very badly and even become unusable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    Even the adobe website does not pass validation.
    So? All it says is that Adobe has poor quality control for its website. It doesn't mean it's a good thing to have invalid markup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    So if your website does not pass validation does that mean something is wrong with it?
    Yes. By definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    I recently created a website with hacks for IE, the had cause the validation to fail, should I be worry about that even though everything is working perfectly in Firefox, IE 6,7 and Safari and Opera.
    It depends on what sort of invalid markup you use (see above). 'Good' hacks (an oxymoron, I know) shouldn't cause invalid markup. CSS hacks for IE should preferably be kept in separate style sheets included in conditional comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    Please advised. When do you ignore validation?
    Perhaps if it's a temporary document on my local computer, meant to be used only by myself.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy bluedreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Middle England
    Posts
    3,403
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tommy is spot on as usual - not that we'd expect anything less!

    here's my take...

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    What does it mean when your website does not validate?
    I know what it means but I'm confused because people say your website must pass validation.
    It means you have errors in your code. A site/page that validates is a sign of good quality, and that the author has taken time to make sure it's correct according to the standards we all work by.

    If you bought a product from a shop and it had several flaws would you be happy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    Even the adobe website does not pass validation.
    As Tommy said, they have poor quality control, or most likely lazy/inexperienced authors using Dreamweaver in WYSIWYG mode

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    So if your website does not pass validation does that mean something is wrong with it?
    Yes. If I was a plumber and fixing your home's heating system you wouldn't be pleased if I left you with leaky pipes. Evem good plumbers work to a set of standards, ie making sure all pipe joins are secure!

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    I recently created a website with hacks for IE, the had cause the validation to fail, should I be worry about that even though everything is working perfectly in Firefox, IE 6,7 and Safari and Opera.
    Even hacks should validate. There probably are some that won't validate but if you care about quality you'd use one that does validate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    Please advised. When do you ignore validation?
    Never I always validate! Even my personal home made browser default page validates.

  4. #4
    From space with love silver trophy
    SpacePhoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Poole, UK
    Posts
    5,074
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Most sites which have user generated content will probably fail validation. The basic page (ie the page without user generated content) should still validate
    Community Team Advisor
    Forum Guidelines: Posting FAQ Signatures FAQ Self Promotion FAQ
    Help the Mods: What's Fluff? Report Fluff/Spam to a Moderator

  5. #5
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post

    CSS hacks for IE should preferably be kept in separate style sheets included in conditional comments.
    Hey can you explain to me how to do this.
    I'm confused as to what the conditional comment is suppose to be.
    Basically I can take the CSS Hack and put it in it's only stylesheet but how do I make the comment? Confused. Still learning, please pardon my ignorance.

    IC

  6. #6
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SpacePhoenix View Post
    Most sites which have user generated content will probably fail validation.
    True, but that's just because of laziness. If you have user generated content, you'll need to provide a validator/clean-up utility for that content to ensure that the output is always valid. For (real) XHTML, of course, this is absolutely essential.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    Hey can you explain to me how to do this.
    I'm confused as to what the conditional comment is suppose to be.
    Basically I can take the CSS Hack and put it in it's only stylesheet but how do I make the comment? Confused. Still learning, please pardon my ignorance.
    No need to apologise for asking relevant questions! That's what forums like these are for. I'm the one who should apologise, for presuming you'd understand my jargon.

    Yes, you should put IE hacks in a separate CSS file. Then you link to that CSS file in a way that only IE understands but – and this is important – you do it using perfectly valid markup!

    Let's say your normal style sheet is called 'screen.css' and the one where you've put all the hacks for IE5 and IE6 is called 'screen_ie6.css'. Let's also say you've got a third one with hacks for IE7 called 'screen_ie7.css'. Then your head element could look like this,
    Code:
    <head>
      <meta http-equv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <title>Document Title</title>
      <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="screen.css" media="screen">
      <!--[if lte IE 6]>
      <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="screen_ie6.css" media="screen">
      <![endif]-->
      <!--[if IE 7]>
      <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="screen_ie7.css" media="screen">
      <![endif]-->
    </head>
    Notice the comments (highlighted in red and green). The first one applies for IE6 and older ('lte' stands for 'less than or equal to'). The second one applies for IE7 only. These are known as 'conditional comments' and are handled only by IE/Win. For every other browser they're just a normal comment, starting at the <!-- and ending at the -->.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  7. #7
    From space with love silver trophy
    SpacePhoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Poole, UK
    Posts
    5,074
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    True, but that's just because of laziness. If you have user generated content, you'll need to provide a validator/clean-up utility for that content to ensure that the output is always valid. For (real) XHTML, of course, this is absolutely essential.
    The page for this thread fails the validation (28 Errors, 3 warning(s)) two of the errors are generated by the content of Autistic's post. The rest of the error are down on the whole missing or misplaced end tags. The errors caused by Autistics post are below (copy and paste from validation report):


    1. Line 1703, Column 19: document type does not allow element "font" here; missing one of "a", "span", "bdo", "tt", "i", "b", "u", "s", "strike", "em", "strong", "dfn", "code", "q", "samp", "kbd", "var", "cite", "abbr", "acronym", "label", "button", "ins", "del" start-tag. <font color="red">&lt;!--[if lte IE 6]&gt;

      The mentioned element is not allowed to appear in the context in which you've placed it; the other mentioned elements are the only ones that are both allowed there and can contain the element mentioned. This might mean that you need a containing element, or possibly that you've forgotten to close a previous element.
      One possible cause for this message is that you have attempted to put a block-level element (such as "<p>" or "<table>") inside an inline element (such as "<a>", "<span>", or "<font>").
    2. Line 1706, Column 21: document type does not allow element "font" here; missing one of "a", "span", "bdo", "tt", "i", "b", "u", "s", "strike", "em", "strong", "dfn", "code", "q", "samp", "kbd", "var", "cite", "abbr", "acronym", "label", "button", "ins", "del" start-tag. <font color="green">&lt;!--[if IE 7]&gt;

      The mentioned element is not allowed to appear in the context in which you've placed it; the other mentioned elements are the only ones that are both allowed there and can contain the element mentioned. This might mean that you need a containing element, or possibly that you've forgotten to close a previous element.
      One possible cause for this message is that you have attempted to put a block-level element (such as "<p>" or "<table>") inside an inline element (such as "<a>", "<span>", or "<font>").
    Community Team Advisor
    Forum Guidelines: Posting FAQ Signatures FAQ Self Promotion FAQ
    Help the Mods: What's Fluff? Report Fluff/Spam to a Moderator

  8. #8
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    252
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    True, but that's just because of laziness. If you have user generated content, you'll need to provide a validator/clean-up utility for that content to ensure that the output is always valid. For (real) XHTML, of course, this is absolutely essential.


    No need to apologise for asking relevant questions! That's what forums like these are for. I'm the one who should apologise, for presuming you'd understand my jargon.

    Yes, you should put IE hacks in a separate CSS file. Then you link to that CSS file in a way that only IE understands but and this is important you do it using perfectly valid markup!

    Let's say your normal style sheet is called 'screen.css' and the one where you've put all the hacks for IE5 and IE6 is called 'screen_ie6.css'. Let's also say you've got a third one with hacks for IE7 called 'screen_ie7.css'. Then your head element could look like this,
    Code:
    <head>
      <meta http-equv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <title>Document Title</title>
      <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="screen.css" media="screen">
      <!--[if lte IE 6]>
      <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="screen_ie6.css" media="screen">
      <![endif]-->
      <!--[if IE 7]>
      <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="screen_ie7.css" media="screen">
      <![endif]-->
    </head>
    Notice the comments (highlighted in red and green). The first one applies for IE6 and older ('lte' stands for 'less than or equal to'). The second one applies for IE7 only. These are known as 'conditional comments' and are handled only by IE/Win. For every other browser they're just a normal comment, starting at the <!-- and ending at the -->.

    Wow! Great way to teach someone.

    Anyway, this is how my stylesheet system is set up.

    In my Markup, I have one stylesheet. Eg: vault.css
    In vault.css I use the Import method to connect all the different stylesheet to the vault.css.

    So I have, navigation.css, index.css.

    Basically I'm putting all the CSS files into categories so I can easily edit later when the site grows. Make sense?

    So where do I put this css hack?


    IC

  9. #9
    secure webapps for all Aleksejs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Riga, Latvia
    Posts
    755
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One more reason to have web page that validates is to make extrusion detection easier.

  10. #10
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,870
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    So where do I put this css hack?

    Since the conditional comments are HTML they need to go in your HTML immediately after the <link> tag that attaches your main stylesheet.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  11. #11
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SpacePhoenix View Post
    two of the errors are generated by the content of Autistic's post.
    That's because VBulletin generates deprecated markup for the &#91;color&#93; tags.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    In my Markup, I have one stylesheet. Eg: vault.css
    In vault.css I use the Import method to connect all the different stylesheet to the vault.css.

    So I have, navigation.css, index.css.

    Basically I'm putting all the CSS files into categories so I can easily edit later when the site grows. Make sense?

    So where do I put this css hack?
    I'd put all of them in one IE-only CSS and link to it in a conditional comment after the link to vault.css.
    Code:
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="vault.css" media="screen">
    <!--[if lte IE 6]>
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="ie-hacks.css" media="screen">
    <![endif]-->
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  12. #12
    SitePoint Evangelist Ed Seedhouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    592
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Invalid html means there is no CSS standard for that html, and so no basis upon which to claim that some browser or other does not render that code in the "standard" way.

    Invalid html means that a browser may render that html as it wishes and not violate the standard because there is no standard on invalid html.

    All current browsers may well error correct in the way you expect them to, but you have no guarantee that future browsers will.

    A standard implies that everyone will comply with the standard. Wanting to have a page that displays acccording to the standard means supplying it with standard following html. Not to do so is a contradiction in terms.
    Ed Seedhouse

  13. #13
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,870
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    It is even more clear cut with XHTML where there is a standard for browsers to follow for any invalid XHTML - that standard is to not display the page at all if any invalid code is found.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  14. #14
    is craving 'the potato' slayerment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    What does it mean when your website does not validate?
    That you care more about making money than wasting time on useless details.

  15. #15
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    279
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Did you know that www.google.co.uk and www.google.com doesn't validate?

  16. #16
    SitePoint Zealot somecallmejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    153
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Are we to assume now that Sitepoint is lazy? Sorry Tommy, that comment really opened a can of worms?

    Let's have a look at some of the other "lazy" sites...

    - Ebay - conversion rate of >15%
    - 1800Flowers.com - conversion rate of >20%
    - QVC - conversion rate >20%
    - ProFlowers - conversion rate >40% (yes 40%)

    Guys, I like clean code, too. It makes ME feel good to write clean, valid, XHTML, and CSS. But lets face, it... valid code, alone, doesn't mean squat to me as a business owner. I'll take one of the broken sites listed above over my valid website anyday.
    Joshua K. Briley
    Website Design and Front End Development

  17. #17
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The problem is you are relying on errors to carry your site, and that those errors will promulgate correctly to any rewrite of your site, and that all browsers will interpret your errors the same way under the same conditions, and when the version upgrades on any of those browsers that the error is still treated the same, and any changes in the standard will also treat those incorrect statements the same.

    In the same way that any computer language requires perfection when it is written, no such thing exists and bugs raise their ugly head at the worst possible time. If you insist on writing error filled markup for your page, it will sooner or later bite you.

    For all you know, those difficult pages you had to write were nothing but invalid markup you insist on fighting. Valid markup is difficult enough to debug without having to wade through invalid markup.

    So do it the right way the first time.

  18. #18
    PHP/Rails Developer Czaries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Central USA
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think validation and coding to standards is an important concept in general. But with HTML, the whole concept is broken. The point of HTML standards is so that the page is always displayed the same in every instance, no matter which browser the user is using. But the bottom line is, that's just not the case. It doesn't happen. And that alone (at least to me) makes continually validating your website pointless.

    Now that's not to say you shouldn't validate at all, because I think you definitely should initially to ensure forward compatibility. But my point is that in the real world, for all practical purposes, it just doesn't matter. Even if the document is XHTML and has errors, it will still be displayed by all browsers if it's sent as text/html without issues. That's not something browser vendors would change since it would break too many sites. Instead, we just wait for the new spec (HTML5/XHTML2) and use that in the future to fix the problem since it dictates how browsers handle display in all cases.

    When I code PHP5 to strict standards, I know it's always going to work and act the same way on any server that has PHP5, and even PHP6 in the future. That makes it both worth doing and essential to always do. When I code HTML to strict standards, it looks and acts different on every browser anyway, so it completely negates the primary benefit. So when it comes down to something like user generated content breaking validation on a perfectly valid website I made, I just don't care. It's not worth worrying about because there are no side-effects.

  19. #19
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,870
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Czaries View Post
    Even if the document is XHTML and has errors, it will still be displayed by all browsers if it's sent as text/html without issues.
    Yes but then it is just HTML with errors rather than XHTML. If you actually serve it as XHTML and there are any errors it will not display anything.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  20. #20
    One website at a time mmj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    6,282
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When is website validation not necessary?

    When either:

    1) The website has already been validated and is known to be valid.

    2) The website only needs to support a range of known user agents, and relies on functionality that is supported by these user agents but is not yet properly described by any web standard.

    3) You are Google and you are making a search engine.

    Off Topic:

    If you're Google, you don't validate your home page. Browsers validate themselves against you.


    There are limits to validation imposed by incompleteness or flaws in the standards. There will always be situations where
    - Something is perfectly valid, but definitely ill-advised. Like hacks that exploit browser bugs, or code that just 'doesn't make sense' or elicits a 'WTF' response in a reasonable person.
    - Something is invalid, but commonly used. Like <embed> nested inside <object> for cross-browser flash (though, in this case there are lesser-used but valid alternatives).
    - Something is invalid according to the words of the spec, but no automated tool tests for it and it therefore passes validation. Think deep nested <a> elements in XHTML, or accessibility guidelines, etc.

    Creating code that satisfies web standards goes far beyond automated validation, just as creating code that works in the real world goes far beyond satisfying web standards.

    Some people like to cut out the middle-man by just creating code that works in the real world regardless of validation. In fact, I would guess that this is the most common approach to building websites globally. You could say that most people are lazy - only a few would be breaking the standards for a justifiable reason (let alone testing it in all browsers under the sun). The problem with this is that where it differs from standards, it is relying on current unspecified browser behaviour, which may cause future problems. The other side of that coin is that everybody else does it, and it's why new browsers always try to emulate past browsers' behaviours.
    Last edited by mmj; Nov 14, 2008 at 00:48.
    [mmj] My magic jigsaw
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The Bit Depth Blog Twitter Contact me
    Neon Javascript Framework Jokes Android stuff

  21. #21
    secure webapps for all Aleksejs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Riga, Latvia
    Posts
    755
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Somecallmejosh, I agree that for now 100% valid site is not one of business objectives. If the fact that your site is not accessable at all if it isn't 100% were in case, we would see completely different "webscape" where if you want to make business you must be 100% valid.
    Returning from imagination world where there is no war and every single site is valid I still think that a web design company ruins a bit of their image if even their webpage does not pass validation.

    In short - from business perspective valid site becomes important if not having your site valid makes you more loss (in lost/unhappy customers, disrupted sales, damage to image of your company) than value of investment to make your site valid. It varries from business to business, if and what magnitude this risk has.

  22. #22
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I forgot to note: if Microsoft can make MSN.com valid, so can you.

  23. #23
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,870
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Google have probably deliberately left a number of things out of their home page that would be required for it to validate. Those omissions are probably reducing total bandwidth used by the internet be a noticeable percentage. Their page is so simple that it works even in browsers written long before the standards.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  24. #24
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    In short - from business perspective valid site becomes important if not having your site valid makes you more loss (in lost/unhappy customers, disrupted sales, damage to image of your company) than value of investment to make your site valid. It varries from business to business, if and what magnitude this risk has.
    Many validation errors don't cause any customer unhappiness. Like, using <embed>, makes everyone happy and seems to work pretty well (I'm still not able to get <object>s to show their alternative children if the Flash doesn't load or the pathname is wrong in more than 3 browsers using Flash Satay...) so long as you have the plugin in the first place.

    What you're talking about is accessibility/usability. Invalid sites can have much more problems with that than valid ones, but valid sites can be terribly inaccessible or difficult/frustrating for people to use. That's where you lose customers. They do NOT check to see if your site is valid.

    Using the valid <object> tag to use Flash to make your site's only menu is perfectly valid code. It's also evil and makes kittens explode.

  25. #25
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bluedreamer View Post
    Yes. If I was a plumber and fixing your home's heating system you wouldn't be pleased if I left you with leaky pipes. Evem good plumbers work to a set of standards, ie making sure all pipe joins are secure!
    Not really the same, as the website still works. There are no 'leaky parts'.

    As to the answer to the question:

    'When making a site validate doesn't add any value to the website' (Speed, content or display).
    Centation Web Services
    Bristol based web design
    Offering website design, website hosting and website development.


Tags for this Thread

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
  •