On 12/24/2009 2:37 PM, Mark Hansen wrote: > On 12/24/2009 9:35 AM, Danny Kile wrote: >> Phillip Jones wrote: >>> JeffM wrote: >>>> Danny Kile wrote: >>>>> I use a program called Local Website Archive. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm >>>> >>>> I find it fascinating that the website for a company in that business >>>> doesn't pass muster: >>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm >>>> 5 Errors >>>> >>>> Compare: >>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html >>>> >>> Who says that Company Web Designers (whether in house or paid) pay one >>> whit attention about W3C specifications. >>> >>> Granted the ones the are here have had it hammered in their head. I'd be >>> very surprised if MS, Adobe, Intuit if you were check theirs would be. 5 >>> error is not a heck of a lot. >>> >>> On my own site I've spent literally months (not every day and not every >>> minute) re working mine to be W#C compliant to at least XML (XHTML) 1.0. >>> Transitional spec. And I still not sure I've go everything. >>> >> I checked Mocrosoft.com, cnn.com, tvguide.com, weather.com, adobe.com >> and uweather.com thet all had hundreds of errors. All their site seem to >> work just fine, so much for validator. I did mozilla.org and it was the >> only site that passed. >> >> Danny > > So much for validator? > > The validator checks to see if the code that makes up the HTML/CSS is > correct. If it's not correct, it generates a validation warning/error. > > If it's not correct, it's not correct. There are no two way about this. > > The fact that a web site appears to function correctly doesn't mean the > HTML/CSS has no problems. Some problems can be big and some can be small. > Some will affect only certain browsers, some will affect only certain parts > of the application, etc. > > Are you really saying that if the site appears to work to your standards > even with validation errors, that the validator has no value? >
Some Web pages cannot be appropriately displayed by Gecko browsers. Although Gecko browsers might possibly now hold a greater share of the market than IE, there are still Web authors using Micro$oft tools to create pages. When complaining to the site's owner (who is not necessarily the author), citing the W3C specifications and the number of errors found by W3C validators can provide excellent support for the complaint. Errors found by the validator might indicate that the site is inaccessible to the handicapped. If the Web site is based in the U.S. and is commercial, such inaccessibility violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); this too is excellent support for the complaint. If the site is owned by a U.S. federal agency, inaccessibility means the site violates Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1986 (as amended in 1998), also excellent support for the complaint. From my personal experience, it is not necessary to prove that the Web site is actually inaccessible to the handicapped and violates either the ADA or Rehabilitation Act of 1986; I have obtained corrective action merely by suggesting there might be violations. There is another aspect to the W3C validators, both the HTML/XHTML validator and the CSS validator. When someone complains that there is a bug in Firefox or SeaMonkey because the browser fails to render a Web page appropriately, the complaint is easily dismissed when the validators find errors in the page. After all, garbage in does indeed often result in garbage out. (NOTE: When I say "appropriately", I mean "as the Web author intended".) -- David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/> Go to Mozdev at <http://www.mozdev.org/> for quick access to extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other Mozilla-related applications. You can access Mozdev much more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
