Hi, John! My personal site had a load of "errors", also... First off, I didn't have the "required" <!DOCTYPE > tag at the beginning, to tell the validato just which version of web code I thought I was running. Without that, it will refuse to go any further. After fixing that, almost all my errors were missing ALT="..." fields in images. All these do is provide a text label that comes up before a browser loads an inline image, or if it cannot load it, for some reason.
> And another funny thing happened. When I typed in validator's own URL and > asked it to validate its OWN site, http://validator.w3.org, it wouldn't do > it! Worked fine, when I tried it; funny, how we always have to test the tester! > In all seriousness, I don't have any confidence in the automatic 'Validator' > and it's Seal of Approval and I'm sorry I forwarded your letter to my > webmaster. Poor guy has been reading all the helpful emails from you guys > and working real hard to change all the PDFs and doesn't need this added > distraction. The validator seems to be a pretty good analyzer of the html code, comparing it to a rigid specificatio, and flagging where it doesn't meet that spec. Unfortunately, meeting the spec doesn't guarantee it will "play" with all browsers, particularly older ones. It is a good tool for finding programming glitches, though. The whole page is a very fine job, and there have been very few actual errors, all minor. The issue with downloading the pdfs is significant, but as you have seen, it has a lot to do with what software the users are using. Hang in there, and be patient. I suspect it will all work out, eventually. Dave 37.28N 121.97W -
