Are "include files" serach egine friendly and HTML/XHTML compliant?

[xfile]

Hi,

Have a question wish to ask for a long time.

Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and CodePage
at the very top of the page.

I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do they
compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?

When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.

Many thanks in advance.

 

[Stefan B Rusynko]

Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the users and Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|

 

[Jens Peter Karlsen [FP-MVP]]

Whether or not they are standards compliant depends on how you write
them. Just use code that are compliant with whatever html "standard"
you want.
Since they don't contain a header they have no meaning by themselves
for Search Engines or Validators. Validate the files that include
them.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

 

[xfile]

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?

 

[Jens Peter Karlsen [FP-MVP]]

It will be interpreted correctly if it is written correctly. Just
because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
compliant with that doctype. If you give us links to one of the asp
pages you have problems with, we can give you some pointers on how to
make them compliant.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?

Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the users and
Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do
they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|

 

[Murray]

It's worth saying again:

"Just because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
compliant with that doctype."

--
Murray
--------------
MVP FrontPage

It will be interpreted correctly if it is written correctly. Just
because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
compliant with that doctype. If you give us links to one of the asp
pages you have problems with, we can give you some pointers on how to
make them compliant.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?

Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the users
and
Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do
they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Okay, now check this out. ASP creates HTML in an HTML page. You create the
ASP. Therefore, you are ultimately responsible for the HTML that appears in
a web page, if you are the author of the web page. The ASP page will spit
out whatever HTML you tell it to.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Chicken Salad Surgery

It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken salad.

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?

Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the users
and Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do
they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|

 

[Mike Mueller]

Are you validating the 'finished product' or the file with
the 'unprocessed' file?


: Hi,
:
: Thanks.
:
: The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML
Validator to test some
: ASP pages, it showed countless errors.
:
: If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and
follow those
: standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?
:
:
:
message
: : > Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just
html to the users and
: > Search engines
: > - how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how
compliant your
: > wrote your code
: >
: > --
: >
: > _____________________________________________
: > SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP -
FrontPage ]
: > "Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!"
(-;
: > To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
: >
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
: > _____________________________________________
: >
: >
: > : > | Hi,
: > |
: > | Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
: > |
: > | Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include
files" and
: > CodePage
: > | at the very top of the page.
: > |
: > | I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine
friendly and do
: > they
: > | compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
: > |
: > | When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
: > |
: > | Many thanks in advance.
: > |
: > |
: >
: >
:
:

 

[P@tty Ayers]

In case the other posts weren't clear: it has *nothing* to do with the use
of includes.

 

[xfile]

Hi,

Thanks for all of your inputs, and since many points are similar so I just
replied the first one in response to all.

(1) About the doctype: No, I did not mean just by inserting doctype and hope
it'd automatically comply with the standard. Did some homework before asked.

(2) About the include file: Yes, it is about the include files. I did the
test on the following - If include files are listed, HTML Validator can't
even identify doctype and some meta tags, and once include files are
removed, it can detect it ok. So it is about the include files.

(3) Other HTML standards: All points are correct. Many of my HTML tags are
incorrect not because of ASP pages but because of the tool I used (FP at
this point) and lack of correct HTML knowledge of myself - not to blame
anything or anyone. I did run test on pages that have removed the major
portion of codes and cleaned up many HTML errors.

(4) Finished vs. unprocessed page: It's "finished" product - I guess. I
tested on the main template of our site, and by default, the main content
area is empty, but it has several include files and some ASP codes to
display product categories and other elements. Other static texts or forms
or codes will be inserted into the main content area based on the type of
pages is needed. In that case, some are unfinished (e.g. user input form)
and some will become finished (e.g. confirmation page). Pure processing
page are excluded from being modified by this template.

(5) Side question about the table height attribute: According to W3C, XHTML
1.0 Transitional does not support table's " height" attribute so I removed
it from one page (just for testing before doing some major errors). It
appears no difference, but I am not so sure. I have many tables with height
attribute and table is a headache for me. So the question is - Shall I
follow the standard and removing all table height attributes or leaving
there will produce no harms, if not good?

Continue from (4), I did find, HTML Validator will still give errors for
left codes such as <%productquantity%> - just an example, it will give error
messages, such as Windows runtime error (can't remember correctly) or font
attribute error which those fonts are not listed in this page.

I assumed header section has been interpreted correctly, because I could
find our site and major pages from Goggle with our description tag. On the
other hand, HTML Validator says the other way.

In any case, my intension of the question is very simple. I am satisfied
with our pages but also wish to make it more "compliant" with HTML standard,
so they are cleaner and maybe good for search engine and visitors.

In fact, I am just confused by if ASP page is counted as HTML page? If it's
not, some errors are fine to be forgotten and I could just use plain page
for verification and then insert codes. If it is treated 100%as HTML page,
I then have to dig deeper into those codes.

It will be interpreted correctly if it is written correctly. Just
because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
compliant with that doctype. If you give us links to one of the asp
pages you have problems with, we can give you some pointers on how to
make them compliant.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?

Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the users
and
Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do
they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|

 

[Ronx]

When validating, you must check the page as returned from a server, not the
page as saved on your hard disc.
Any unrendered ASP code will return an error in a validator - it must be
rendered by a server.
HTML Validator sounds like a software product I used to use - perfect for
..htm pages, useless for .asp pages, for the above reasons.
--
Ron Symonds - Microsoft MVP (FrontPage)
Reply only to group - emails will be deleted unread.
FrontPage Support: http://www.frontpagemvps.com/

Hi,

Thanks for all of your inputs, and since many points are similar so I
just replied the first one in response to all.

(1) About the doctype: No, I did not mean just by inserting doctype and
hope it'd automatically comply with the standard. Did some homework
before asked.

(2) About the include file: Yes, it is about the include files. I did
the test on the following - If include files are listed, HTML Validator
can't even identify doctype and some meta tags, and once include files
are removed, it can detect it ok. So it is about the include files.

(3) Other HTML standards: All points are correct. Many of my HTML tags
are incorrect not because of ASP pages but because of the tool I used (FP
at this point) and lack of correct HTML knowledge of myself - not to
blame anything or anyone. I did run test on pages that have removed the
major portion of codes and cleaned up many HTML errors.

(4) Finished vs. unprocessed page: It's "finished" product - I guess. I
tested on the main template of our site, and by default, the main content
area is empty, but it has several include files and some ASP codes to
display product categories and other elements. Other static texts or
forms or codes will be inserted into the main content area based on the
type of pages is needed. In that case, some are unfinished (e.g. user
input form) and some will become finished (e.g. confirmation page). Pure
processing page are excluded from being modified by this template.

(5) Side question about the table height attribute: According to W3C,
XHTML 1.0 Transitional does not support table's " height" attribute so I
removed it from one page (just for testing before doing some major
errors). It appears no difference, but I am not so sure. I have many
tables with height attribute and table is a headache for me. So the
question is - Shall I follow the standard and removing all table height
attributes or leaving there will produce no harms, if not good?

Continue from (4), I did find, HTML Validator will still give errors for
left codes such as <%productquantity%> - just an example, it will give
error messages, such as Windows runtime error (can't remember correctly)
or font attribute error which those fonts are not listed in this page.

I assumed header section has been interpreted correctly, because I could
find our site and major pages from Goggle with our description tag. On
the other hand, HTML Validator says the other way.

In any case, my intension of the question is very simple. I am satisfied
with our pages but also wish to make it more "compliant" with HTML
standard, so they are cleaner and maybe good for search engine and
visitors.

In fact, I am just confused by if ASP page is counted as HTML page? If
it's not, some errors are fine to be forgotten and I could just use plain
page for verification and then insert codes. If it is treated 100%as
HTML page, I then have to dig deeper into those codes.

It will be interpreted correctly if it is written correctly. Just
because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
compliant with that doctype. If you give us links to one of the asp
pages you have problems with, we can give you some pointers on how to
make them compliant.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test
some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?



Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the users
and
Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:

http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do
they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|

 

[Jens Peter Karlsen [FP-MVP]]

It sounds to me like the html validator you talk about is a local tool
which you use to open the asp file directly from your harddrive?
If so that will never work. You must go thru the Server so it sees the
generated html not the raw asp code.
try W3Cs validator at:
http://validator.w3.org/
Point it to the URL of your *.asp page and see what it says.

Since you seem unwilling to post an URL here, we can't help you any
further.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

 

[xfile]

Hi,

Thanks. I am using the online Validator from W3C when I was reading some
articles.

I am not sure but I think it has problem with ASP pages. In any case, I've
done with it by removing all VBscript codes and test it again pure HTML
tags.

Thanks again.

When validating, you must check the page as returned from a server, not
the page as saved on your hard disc.
Any unrendered ASP code will return an error in a validator - it must be
rendered by a server.
HTML Validator sounds like a software product I used to use - perfect for
.htm pages, useless for .asp pages, for the above reasons.
--
Ron Symonds - Microsoft MVP (FrontPage)
Reply only to group - emails will be deleted unread.
FrontPage Support: http://www.frontpagemvps.com/

Hi,

Thanks for all of your inputs, and since many points are similar so I
just replied the first one in response to all.

(1) About the doctype: No, I did not mean just by inserting doctype and
hope it'd automatically comply with the standard. Did some homework
before asked.

(2) About the include file: Yes, it is about the include files. I did
the test on the following - If include files are listed, HTML Validator
can't even identify doctype and some meta tags, and once include files
are removed, it can detect it ok. So it is about the include files.

(3) Other HTML standards: All points are correct. Many of my HTML tags
are incorrect not because of ASP pages but because of the tool I used (FP
at this point) and lack of correct HTML knowledge of myself - not to
blame anything or anyone. I did run test on pages that have removed the
major portion of codes and cleaned up many HTML errors.

(4) Finished vs. unprocessed page: It's "finished" product - I guess. I
tested on the main template of our site, and by default, the main content
area is empty, but it has several include files and some ASP codes to
display product categories and other elements. Other static texts or
forms or codes will be inserted into the main content area based on the
type of pages is needed. In that case, some are unfinished (e.g. user
input form) and some will become finished (e.g. confirmation page). Pure
processing page are excluded from being modified by this template.

(5) Side question about the table height attribute: According to W3C,
XHTML 1.0 Transitional does not support table's " height" attribute so I
removed it from one page (just for testing before doing some major
errors). It appears no difference, but I am not so sure. I have many
tables with height attribute and table is a headache for me. So the
question is - Shall I follow the standard and removing all table height
attributes or leaving there will produce no harms, if not good?

Continue from (4), I did find, HTML Validator will still give errors for
left codes such as <%productquantity%> - just an example, it will give
error messages, such as Windows runtime error (can't remember correctly)
or font attribute error which those fonts are not listed in this page.

I assumed header section has been interpreted correctly, because I could
find our site and major pages from Goggle with our description tag. On
the other hand, HTML Validator says the other way.

In any case, my intension of the question is very simple. I am satisfied
with our pages but also wish to make it more "compliant" with HTML
standard, so they are cleaner and maybe good for search engine and
visitors.

In fact, I am just confused by if ASP page is counted as HTML page? If
it's not, some errors are fine to be forgotten and I could just use plain
page for verification and then insert codes. If it is treated 100%as
HTML page, I then have to dig deeper into those codes.

It will be interpreted correctly if it is written correctly. Just
because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
compliant with that doctype. If you give us links to one of the asp
pages you have problems with, we can give you some pointers on how to
make them compliant.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:26:46 +0800, "xfile"

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test
some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?



Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the users
and
Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:

http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do
they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|

 

[xfile]

Hi,

Actually, that is the one I used when I was at W3C researching the
differences between different doctypes and HTML standards.

And the test was against the page residing in the server. I apologize
though for not providing pages or site name. I just don't feel comfortable
for providing site name on the net.

In any case, I have done the test by removing all ASP codes and have it
tested against only HTML contents and also done the corrections.

Just for reference:

No.1 error: No closing tag - I did not know that and my best friend FP did
not do it for me or remind me.

No 2 error: No alt attribute for image files - Well, purely my fault - too
lazy for doing it for all images.

Final note - Although I don't know the "scientific" reasons for this, I am
almost certain that these so-called HTML Validators are not very friendly
with include files (or CodePage).

I guess it's because include files and doctype tag are fighting with each
other for the top position on the page, and HTML Validator tends to favor
doctype tag better. Once include files are removed, it can correctly ID
doctype tag and others. Once include files are placed on the top position,
it even told me that I should not put doctype tag at that position (or
"instance" in its own word) which is right below the include files.

In any case, I found Expression Web Developer will add those closing tags
and hopefully it will do so for other elements as well.

Thanks for your kind advise.

 

[Murray]

If you are pasting your code into the validator, yes, it'll have a problem
with the scripting.

--
Murray
--------------
MVP FrontPage

Hi,

Thanks. I am using the online Validator from W3C when I was reading some
articles.

I am not sure but I think it has problem with ASP pages. In any case,
I've done with it by removing all VBscript codes and test it again pure
HTML tags.

Thanks again.

When validating, you must check the page as returned from a server, not
the page as saved on your hard disc.
Any unrendered ASP code will return an error in a validator - it must be
rendered by a server.
HTML Validator sounds like a software product I used to use - perfect for
.htm pages, useless for .asp pages, for the above reasons.
--
Ron Symonds - Microsoft MVP (FrontPage)
Reply only to group - emails will be deleted unread.
FrontPage Support: http://www.frontpagemvps.com/

Hi,

Thanks for all of your inputs, and since many points are similar so I
just replied the first one in response to all.

(1) About the doctype: No, I did not mean just by inserting doctype and
hope it'd automatically comply with the standard. Did some homework
before asked.

(2) About the include file: Yes, it is about the include files. I did
the test on the following - If include files are listed, HTML Validator
can't even identify doctype and some meta tags, and once include files
are removed, it can detect it ok. So it is about the include files.

(3) Other HTML standards: All points are correct. Many of my HTML tags
are incorrect not because of ASP pages but because of the tool I used
(FP at this point) and lack of correct HTML knowledge of myself - not to
blame anything or anyone. I did run test on pages that have removed the
major portion of codes and cleaned up many HTML errors.

(4) Finished vs. unprocessed page: It's "finished" product - I guess. I
tested on the main template of our site, and by default, the main
content area is empty, but it has several include files and some ASP
codes to display product categories and other elements. Other static
texts or forms or codes will be inserted into the main content area
based on the type of pages is needed. In that case, some are unfinished
(e.g. user input form) and some will become finished (e.g. confirmation
page). Pure processing page are excluded from being modified by this
template.

(5) Side question about the table height attribute: According to W3C,
XHTML 1.0 Transitional does not support table's " height" attribute so I
removed it from one page (just for testing before doing some major
errors). It appears no difference, but I am not so sure. I have many
tables with height attribute and table is a headache for me. So the
question is - Shall I follow the standard and removing all table height
attributes or leaving there will produce no harms, if not good?

Continue from (4), I did find, HTML Validator will still give errors for
left codes such as <%productquantity%> - just an example, it will give
error messages, such as Windows runtime error (can't remember correctly)
or font attribute error which those fonts are not listed in this page.

I assumed header section has been interpreted correctly, because I could
find our site and major pages from Goggle with our description tag. On
the other hand, HTML Validator says the other way.

In any case, my intension of the question is very simple. I am
satisfied with our pages but also wish to make it more "compliant" with
HTML standard, so they are cleaner and maybe good for search engine and
visitors.

In fact, I am just confused by if ASP page is counted as HTML page? If
it's not, some errors are fine to be forgotten and I could just use
plain page for verification and then insert codes. If it is treated
100%as HTML page, I then have to dig deeper into those codes.

It will be interpreted correctly if it is written correctly. Just
because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
compliant with that doctype. If you give us links to one of the asp
pages you have problems with, we can give you some pointers on how to
make them compliant.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:26:46 +0800, "xfile"

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test
some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?



Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the
users and
Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:

http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and
do
they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|

 

[Murray]

Final note - Although I don't know the "scientific" reasons for this, I am

almost certain that these so-called HTML Validators are not very friendly
with include files (or CodePage).

Completely incorrect.

I guess it's because include files and doctype tag are fighting with each
other for the top position on the page, and HTML Validator tends to favor
doctype tag better. Once include files are removed, it can correctly ID
doctype tag and others. Once include files are placed on the top
position, it even told me that I should not put doctype tag at that
position (or "instance" in its own word) which is right below the include
files.

Completely incorrect.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Final note - Although I don't know the "scientific" reasons for this, I am

almost certain that these so-called HTML Validators are not very friendly
with include files (or CodePage).
I guess it's because include files and doctype tag are fighting with each
other for the top position on the page, and HTML Validator tends to favor
doctype tag better. Once include files are removed, it can correctly ID
doctype tag and others. Once include files are placed on the top
position, it even told me that I should not put doctype tag at that
position (or "instance" in its own word) which is right below the include
files.

This is because you did not understand what you were told:

1. HTML is text. You can create HTML with NotePad.
2. ASP is a technology that dynamically generates HTML (text)
3. An include file is simply a separate file that is inserted into another
and returned as part of the other file. The files are combined into a single
file and processed as if they were one file.
4. The include file is exactly like any other ASP page in every other
respect.
5. ASP coding does not go to the browser, only the HTML that it generates.
6. You create the ASP pages and server-side includes.
7. Therefore, you decide what HTML it will produce.
8. Therefore, if the HTML doesn't validate, it is your doing.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Chicken Salad Surgery

It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken salad.

 

[xfile]

Hi,

You are absolutely correct that I did not understand most of things I were
told here.

Although I think I understood your points from 1-6, I don't really
understand 7, 8 and what Murray meant "incorrect".

But I guess it's not important, and I can simply live with something I don't
really understand since there are too many.

But just to share, I did try with a blank page produced by EWD and tested it
only with included files and not with it.

Nothing else were included and that's how I derived the conclusion. I don't
know what kind of mistakes could I possibly make under that test.

But again, as long as the rest of HTML codes are compliant with the standard
and when ASP include files and codes are being added can do the job - I am
more than happy to care for why HTLM Validator produce errors when those two
are combined.

Many thank for all of your kind sharing!

Again, I don't know in that case, what mistakes could I possibly make?

 

[Ronx]

I always place the <!doctype> as the first line in the page, everything
else follows it.
The pages render correctly in all browsers (that I have checked), and the
validators are happy.

Right or wrong? It works, so no worries.

 

[Murray]

It's right, proper, and correct to make the doctype the first line in the
file.

If xfile would show us the pages that are not validating, someone could tell
him/her precisely why they are not, instead of vaguely speculating about
what might or might not be happening....