I'm amazed it took this long for a link to the W3 validator to creep into the conversation. Maybe if we keep at it the list archives will trump w3schools in search results?
Regards, Barney Carroll barney.carr...@gmail.com +44 7429 177278 barneycarroll.com On 11 January 2015 at 16:22, Tom Livingston <tom...@gmail.com> wrote: > It appears that the errors are for things that are not yet part of the spec > the validator is based on. I would not call that bad code. > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:17 AM Philip Taylor <p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > > > > > Tom Livingston wrote: > > > For someone at the OPs level, I'd not recommend a site with such a bad > > > reputation. He won't know if what he is reading is correct. While that > > site > > > may be improved as of late, why start learning at such a poorly > regarded > > > source. There are much more reputable places to learn the basics. > > > > > > Csstricks.com > > > > > > Moz sites > > > > > > Html5doctor > > > > I would personally treat with the greatest suspicion any site claiming > > to offer guidance on W3C standards that does not itself validate : > > > > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://html5doctor.com/ > > > > Philip Taylor > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
