Alan Burlison wrote:
Mike Kupfer wrote:
2. I validated the page using the "Validate by URI" tab at
validator.w3.org, using the defaults for all the options. Is that
the expected way to do it? It gives me "XHTML 1.0 Strict" checking
with 9 errors. 6 of the errors that the validator is reporting
appear to be from the site boilerplate, not the editable content.
I tried revalidating using "XHTML 1.0 Transitional" instead of "XHTML
1.0 Strict" and still got 2 errors, both of which appear to be in the
boilerplate. Validating as "XHTML 1.0 FrameSet" gives me 4 errors,
all of which appear to be in the site boilerplate.
I also tried the "validate by direct input" tab, copying in the
content text from the portal's "edit page" form. But it seems I need
to specify a doctype, and I don't know what to specify.
The w3 validator seems less than fully useful - I use it sometimes from
the 'Web Developer' Firefox plugin, and many of the errors often seem to
be spurious. For the migration I think that the things that cause
problems are unbalanced tags etc. I haven't yet found something that is
really good at just pointing out those sort of errors.
I use SUNWtidy for the pkg(5) project.
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
website-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
