html code validator

Status
Not open for further replies.
bloomz

bloomz

New Member
Nov 12, 2002
7,769
3,245
0
23
Corvalis
State / Prov
OR
A few months ago I decided after several years of adding and removing from my code that it was a mess, and I wanted it to be xhtml 1.0 transitional in keeping with the times, and since more people all the time are using esoteric browswers which are stricter.

http://validator.w3.org/

is a good site to see what's going on - I had to get some help cleaning up my code as I use a wysiwg editor - I know my limitations and code is not something I am 100% fluent in (that's why I use an editor, which is supposed to help you spot code errors, but...)

Something I find very trippy is the number of errors found on wire service sites.

FTD.com shows 62 errors with 38 warnings, teleflora 132 errors with 63 warnings. I think I like that. :rofl:

Interesting.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Bloomz,

If I ran that correctly...you tha' man with only ONE error!!!!:ryan:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
bloomz said:
A few months ago I decided after several years of adding and removing from my code that it was a mess, and I wanted it to be xhtml 1.0 transitional in keeping with the times, and since more people all the time are using esoteric browswers which are stricter.

http://validator.w3.org/

is a good site to see what's going on - I had to get some help cleaning up my code as I use a wysiwg editor - I know my limitations and code is not something I am 100% fluent in (that's why I use an editor, which is supposed to help you spot code errors, but...)

Something I find very trippy is the number of errors found on wire service sites.

FTD.com shows 62 errors with 38 warnings, teleflora 132 errors with 63 warnings. I think I like that. :rofl:

Interesting.....
Click to expand...

Very strange, I ran that validator on www.colemanflorist.com and it showed 163 errors. I wonder how accurate it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I wonder as well since I've checked several well known sites ( and those of FC'ers, and it's throwing up enormeous error numbers.

Went searching and found this review of the W3C site.


http://www.loriswebs.com/validators.html

Note it says if Doc type not noted, results can be skewed?

Not a techie but learning...so tell me when I'm wrong.

Carolyn
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Validation can be useful. I ran the tool and found some open tags and a Vcard with errors on my site.

Since coleman's is a work in progress, lets assume the coding will get tweaked.

Ran the validator on sites that belong to other posters in this thread and lets just say there's clean-up work to be done all around. :>
 
I love this techie talk...keep it coming.

Maybe that could be a new section for FC. Techie Talk, and we could review the newly activated sites for unseen little errors and tweaks.
Like we've been doing this weekend. More eyes,more help, more benefit to the independent sites.
 
Hi Dorothy:

Coding errors are fixable at the hosting level. You are a florist and shouldn't have to worry about such issues. After all, you are paying your hosting company good money so you don't have to worry in that regard.
 
Mac said:
Hi Dorothy:

Coding errors are fixable at the hosting level. You are a florist and shouldn't have to worry about such issues. After all, you are paying your hosting company good money so you don't have to worry in that regard.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mac...so should I be forwarding the errors to TF and asking them to fix?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Hi Sher. What I meant by that is that since your website has only 37 coding errors you don't really need to bring it to anybody's attention. By way of comparison with other floral websites, you have very little to worry about.
 
roysecityfloristand gifts said:
Bloomz,

If I ran that correctly...you tha' man with only ONE error!!!!:ryan:
Click to expand...

I knew when I needed help is all I can take credit for.

That error I have is to do with that social bookmarking link widget deal on my front page and there seems to be nothing I can do about it short of just getting rid of it, which I may well do.
 
Hi Dorothy. I'm going to answer you from two perspectives. My personal opinion is that the coding errors for your TLF site are not high enough to warrant any real concern.

However, I think Ryan would believe differently and tell you to forward it off to them....and I base that conclusion on what he's written in the past. Perhaps he can go into more depth for you, but in a review he did on the website design of A Vanity Fair Florist, he specifically identified that “the site’s code is a mess.” Well, if you run the A Vanity Fair Florist website in the validator you will discover that that figure is 85 coding errors. So, since your figure is worse off then that website, which Ryan said was "a mess," I'm sure he'd tell you to forward that puppy immediately.

Having said that, I find it odd that his own family floral website at http://martinflowers.com has over 350 coding errors. Perhaps Ryan can elaborate on that figure as I'm curious myself as to know if that 350 figure warrants a quick fix in his mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
The validator makes me chuckle. I ran my Media99 site the other day, it had 25 errors. My wedding website (built in that "crappy, much hated" program FrontPage) had just 5, built by a non pro (me) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back