W3c validation - should we bother?

[Steve]

I have been told if your site is not validated by an W3C HTML validator your
site will be ingnored by many search engines/robots etc effecting your sites
rankings etc.

1/ Is this true?
2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?
3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]
4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

Funny thing is the only site I could find on the web that does come up clean
and pass W3C validation - is Microsoft.com ??? Microsoft must have used a
program other to FP to build it !!!

Advice from anyone would be grately appreciated. Thanks Steve.

 

[Steve Easton]

Inline.

I have been told if your site is not validated by an W3C HTML validator
your
site will be ingnored by many search engines/robots etc effecting your
sites
rankings etc.

1/ Is this true?
No.

2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?

It's nice, but it's very difficult. Also what validates today, might not in
six months

3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor?

No

[because FP

2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]

Don't take this as a personal attack, but normally it's the user, not the
program.
You need to become very familiar with html.

4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

I like CSE Lite html validator.

Funny thing is the only site I could find on the web that does come up
clean
and pass W3C validation - is Microsoft.com ??? Microsoft must have used
a
program other to FP to build it !!!

Yes and no. They just make sure it validates.

Advice from anyone would be grately appreciated. Thanks Steve.

--
Steve Easton
Microsoft MVP FrontPage
95isalive
This site is best viewed............
........................with a computer

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

1. No
2. If you want to and/or have requirement to do so.
3. Using FP Theme, Shared Border and FP navigation components, etc. that add formatting tags, these
tags that will not validate.
4. I don't validate, only check sites in various browsers, since what truly matters, is that
end-user can view the site as designed.
--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

 

[Tom [Pepper] Willett]

No.

 

[Jon Spivey]

Hi,
1/ Nonsense A search engine is not going to "ignore" any site that has
content, if it finds the site it will visit and give it an appropriate
ranking. What counts is the difference between listed on page 1 and page 52.
Using reasonably valid code will help a little but what really counts is the
content on the page
2/ As far as you can. W3c makes sense in as much as using CSS, seperating
content from presentation. There's no sensible reason not to do this anyway.
3/ No
4/ Understand the HTML. FP isn't designed to produce totally valid code

I'd put it like this. Let's say you're having 8 people over to dinner you
get a recipe from one of these fancy chefs cookbooks, it calls for an
ingredient you don't have but you're a good cook so you sub something else.
Your guests love the dinner, you've done a good job. On the other hand if
you follow the recipe to the letter but just can't cook the meal is going to
be bad. Web sites are the same, understand the basics HTML/CSS etc and
everything else will come good

 

[Murray]

1/ Is this true?

No.

3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor?
No.

[because FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]

You mean that people using FP2002 tell it to do things that produce code
that validators don't like? This would be true in any HTML authoring
system.

4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

If you know HTML you will produce valid code. If you don't, you will not.

Microsoft must have used a
program other to FP to build it !!!

Perhaps the people making the site understood HTML?

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

I have been told if your site is not validated by an W3C HTML validator
your
site will be ingnored by many search engines/robots etc effecting your
sites
rankings etc.

2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?
3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]
4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

Funny thing is the only site I could find on the web that does come up
clean
and pass W3C validation - is Microsoft.com ??? Microsoft must have used
a
program other to FP to build it !!!

Advice from anyone would be grately appreciated. Thanks Steve.

 

[Louis]

Thought It need some clearing up (quite confusing) so I'm going to
answer too. lol ; )

1/ Is this true?

1. No

2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?

2. I think more highly of a website that validates, but it's up to you.

3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]

3. No

4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

4. Sorry. I don't know of one.

--
Louis Johnson MFB
Microsoft Frontpage Beginner
http://www.Bahamalouie.com

I have been told if your site is not validated by an W3C HTML validator your
site will be ingnored by many search engines/robots etc effecting your sites
rankings etc.

1/ Is this true?
2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?
3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]
4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

Funny thing is the only site I could find on the web that does come up clean
and pass W3C validation - is Microsoft.com ??? Microsoft must have used a
program other to FP to build it !!!

Advice from anyone would be grately appreciated. Thanks Steve.

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

Question:

When you surf the web, do you check to be sure every site that you visit validates?

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

Thought It need some clearing up (quite confusing) so I'm going to
answer too. lol ; )

1/ Is this true?

1. No

2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?

2. I think more highly of a website that validates, but it's up to you.

3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]

3. No

4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

4. Sorry. I don't know of one.

--
Louis Johnson MFB
Microsoft Frontpage Beginner
http://www.Bahamalouie.com

I have been told if your site is not validated by an W3C HTML validator your
site will be ingnored by many search engines/robots etc effecting your sites
rankings etc.

1/ Is this true?
2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?
3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]
4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

Funny thing is the only site I could find on the web that does come up clean
and pass W3C validation - is Microsoft.com ??? Microsoft must have used a
program other to FP to build it !!!

Advice from anyone would be grately appreciated. Thanks Steve.

 

[P@tty Ayers]

Advice from anyone would be grately appreciated. Thanks Steve.

A few things missing from the other replies:

W3C-validated code is a good thing. Learning what is valid and what is not
will help you to know and understand HTML and CSS.

Checking your pages with a validator is a good thing; it usually catches
mistakes that should be fixed. It will also catch things that you may decide
are fine for your page, but which are technically invalid. It's up to you to
decide.

Someone said that it's "difficult" to validate HTML code; I haven't found it
to be so. When I started using a validator a few years ago, my pages had
only a few errors anyway, because I'd learned good coding habits. If you're
writing good code, it's not a problem at all.

But do you have to be slavishly devoted to validating your code? Definitely
not. It's just a useful tool for learning to write good code.

 

[Viken Karaguesian]

I don't think I've seen so many MVP's respond to the same post! LOL!

Search engines don't care whether or not your site is validated. They just
care if it has content. As far as validation goes: I like to validate simply
because validating can really help you learn how to properly code html (if
that's what you want).

Also, validating can help make sure that the site is cross-browser
compatible. How? By keeping out propietary code. Does your site *have to*
validate? No. If it works...it works. But, you can be sure that I site that
validates *will* work in your browser and is made according to the "rules".

As far as Frontpage is concerned: It doesn't always produce valid code. But,
a program can't read one's mind and produce a perfectly lean page. I've
learned to code in HTML and CSS and now use Frontpage in Code view. It's
been a long time since I've used it in WSYSYG mode. FP is a great site
management program. Even though I don't use the WSYSYG features, the other
features make it a great tool to use.

I validate at W3C's website http://validator.w3.org/

 

[Kevin Spencer]

One final note regarding validation. One of the most popular web sites on
the Internet is Google. Their home page comes up with about 50 errors when
you validate it using the W3C.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
You can lead a fish to a bicycle,
but it takes a very long time,
and the bicycle has to *want* to change.

 

[Murray]

Ahhh - the truth, indeed.

Does your site *have to* validate? No. If it works...it works.

It works *for now - in the current crop of browser versions* but there is no
guarantee it will work into the future. This is the biggest problem with
using code that does not validate.

Of course, one has to have the understanding to make the decision about how
likely the reason for the page's non-validation is to cause problems. A
missing alt tag will probably not ever cause problems. The use of a
<monkeybutt> tag in a critical function, that just happens to be recognized
by current browsers, may well be trouble in a year.

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

I don't think I've seen so many MVP's respond to the same post! LOL!

Search engines don't care whether or not your site is validated. They just
care if it has content. As far as validation goes: I like to validate
simply because validating can really help you learn how to properly code
html (if that's what you want).

Also, validating can help make sure that the site is cross-browser
compatible. How? By keeping out propietary code. Does your site *have to*
validate? No. If it works...it works. But, you can be sure that I site
that validates *will* work in your browser and is made according to the
"rules".

As far as Frontpage is concerned: It doesn't always produce valid code.
But, a program can't read one's mind and produce a perfectly lean page.
I've learned to code in HTML and CSS and now use Frontpage in Code view.
It's been a long time since I've used it in WSYSYG mode. FP is a great
site management program. Even though I don't use the WSYSYG features, the
other features make it a great tool to use.

I validate at W3C's website http://validator.w3.org/

--
Viken K.
http://home.comcast.net/~vikenk

I have been told if your site is not validated by an W3C HTML validator
your
site will be ingnored by many search engines/robots etc effecting your
sites
rankings etc.

1/ Is this true?
2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?
3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]
4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

Funny thing is the only site I could find on the web that does come up
clean
and pass W3C validation - is Microsoft.com ??? Microsoft must have
used a
program other to FP to build it !!!

Advice from anyone would be grately appreciated. Thanks Steve.

 

[P@tty Ayers]

That's interesting, but remember, nobody is saying that everybody's code
should be able to pass W3C validation.

We're saying that you should know what it means, how to achieve it, and make
conscious decisions on whether to use invalid code or not.


--
Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate Worksheet
--

One final note regarding validation. One of the most popular web sites on
the Internet is Google. Their home page comes up with about 50 errors when
you validate it using the W3C.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
.Net Developer
You can lead a fish to a bicycle,
but it takes a very long time,
and the bicycle has to *want* to change.

 

[P@tty Ayers]

Actually, with Firefox's one-click validation feature, I often check, just
because I'm interested. But no, I'm not like the poster you replied to; I
generally don't care whether the site validates or not. My reason for
writing valid code is not to impress other web developers.


--
Patty Ayers | www.WebDevBiz.com
Free Articles on the Business of Web Development
Web Design Contract, Estimate Request Form, Estimate Worksheet
--

Question:

When you surf the web, do you check to be sure every site that you visit
validates?

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

Thought It need some clearing up (quite confusing) so I'm going to
answer too. lol ; )

1/ Is this true?

1. No

2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?

2. I think more highly of a website that validates, but it's up to you.

3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because
FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]

3. No

4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

4. Sorry. I don't know of one.

--
Louis Johnson MFB
Microsoft Frontpage Beginner
http://www.Bahamalouie.com

I have been told if your site is not validated by an W3C HTML validator
your
site will be ingnored by many search engines/robots etc effecting your
sites
rankings etc.

1/ Is this true?
2/ Should we all be conforming to W3C?
3/ I use FP 2002 - does 2003 come with a built in W3C editor? [because
FP
2002 seems to produce a lot of code that the validators do not like]
4/ If not what program do you recommend for validation?

Funny thing is the only site I could find on the web that does come up
clean
and pass W3C validation - is Microsoft.com ??? Microsoft must have
used a
program other to FP to build it !!!

Advice from anyone would be grately appreciated. Thanks Steve.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

We're saying that you should know what it means, how to achieve it, and

make conscious decisions on whether to use invalid code or not.

I'm not sure who "we" is. And I don't recall making any statement other than
the observation I posted. I was not disagreeing (or agreeing) with anyone.
But as long as I'm being addressed about this, I might as well make a few
comments.

I believe in standards, and I am happy about the recent trend in the
industry to accept and adhere to the standards that do exist. This will mean
that HTML and web application development will become much easier for those
of us "in the trenches." I believe that, as much as possible, a good
developer should adhere to these standards. As has been pointed out, it
results in better cross-browser compatibility, and less future maintenance
of code written.

That said, we are emerging from a history that has been chaotic at best,
with regards to web development. When HTML was first created, there were no
standards. When HTML was first extended, there were no standards. When
JavaScript was developed, there were no standards. The W3C has had quite a
job on their hands coming up with standards over the years. And they are
admittedly not quite finished, in terms of, for example, the integration of
EcmaScript (JavaScript) into the HTML Document Object Model.

This means that certain things simply cannot be done without exceeding the
existing standards. However, in the post-browser-war era, the vendors have
been very cooperative with one another, and there are many things not in the
standards (yet) that the browser vendors have agreed upon. This is
particularly true in the area of EcmaScript and the DOM. There are many
things which are not standard, but work equally well in IE as well as the
Mozilla family of browsers (FireFox, Netscape, etc).

The result of this is that, if one wants to do certain things in an HTML
document or web application, one must use code which is not included in any
W3C standards. It is likely, however, that, being agreed upon by the
vendors, it will be adopted into the standards at some future point.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, while knowing the standards is
very important, adhering to them (including passing a validation test) is
not as important, and sometimes, not important at all.

BTW, Patty, http://www.webdevbiz.com/ comes up with 27 errors, and
http://www.thepattysite.com/ comes up with 2. ;-)

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
You can lead a fish to a bicycle,
but it takes a very long time,
and the bicycle has to *want* to change.

 

[Murray]

BTW, Patty, http://www.webdevbiz.com/ comes up with 27 errors, and

http://www.thepattysite.com/ comes up with 2. ;-)

The 27 errors are all related to improper XHTML tag syntax, and none would
have registered had Patty used HTML4.01 Strict instead.... 8) Well, maybe
one would have snuck through.

Anyhow, those are very easily fixed, and none of them would have caused any
current (or future) browser issue.

The two on thepattysite.com are missing alt attributes. Again, easily fixed
and no real problem.

I'm just saying....

 

[Kevin Spencer]

The 27 errors are all related to improper XHTML tag syntax, and none would

have registered had Patty used HTML4.01 Strict instead.... 8)

I know, Murray. I wasn't making a criticism. I have no problem whatsoever
with it! In fact, both sites work quite well and almost identically in IE
and FireFox.

I think that what I was trying to point out (not too successfully) was that
"Validation" in itself is not a goal per se, nor a virtue. The OP was asking
about W3C validation, but his intent was to make sure that he was designing
his web site "right." So, his question was really about whether or not W3C
validation enables the achievement certain design goals, such as
cross-browser compatibility, ease of maintenance, or anything he hadn't
thought of, while still achieving the requirements for the web site. The
point I was trying to make was that it doesn't matter whether W3C validation
enables the achievement of those goals; what matters is how to achieve those
goals. And W3C validation in and of itself does not completely achieve this,
yet. The W3C validator can be useful to a limited extent. However, there are
gaps in the standards, and where those gaps exist, we must look to the
agreed-upon "standards" embraced by the major browser vendors.

If you look at the Gecko DOM Reference
(http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref/dom_shortTOC.html), you will notice
that a number of DOM interfaces supported by Mozilla are not in the W3C
Standard, but are agreed upon by all major browser vendors. In fact, a
number of them were originally conceived by Microsoft, and the DOM Reference
mentions this. All the major browsers support these, and perhaps eventually
they will make their way into the W3C standard. But the question I was
raising was, do these sorts of "non-standard" or "invalid" elements achieve
the design goals that the OP (and all of us) was concerned about? The answer
is, of course, "yes."

So, again, I was not disagreeing with anyone, nor attempting to criticise
anyone (both of Patty's web sites are quite excellent, as I'm sure her
others are!). I was trying to point out the underlying principle, and that
it is not always a bad thing to write "invalid" HTML or CSS. In fact, it is
occasionally necessary. And that if we keep our eyes on the principles upon
which such standards are created, we will do much better than if we simply
take the existing W3C standards as gospel.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
You can lead a fish to a bicycle,
but it takes a very long time,
and the bicycle has to *want* to change.

 

[Viken Karaguesian]

Patty, where's Firefox's one-click validation feature? I've looked all
over my Firefox settings and I can't find it. I know that in Opera you
can ALT+CTRL+V to validate. But I didn't know about Firefox.

 

[P@tty Ayers]

Patty, where's Firefox's one-click validation feature? I've looked all
over my Firefox settings and I can't find it. I know that in Opera you
can ALT+CTRL+V to validate. But I didn't know about Firefox.

It's actually a Firefox extension:

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensio...cation=firefox&category=Developer Tools&id=60

It's awesome - and does a lot of other useful things.

 

[P@tty Ayers]

I think that what I was trying to point out (not too successfully)

I haven't run that site through a validator in a long time. I don't feel the
need to; I know my code, and it's just the way I want it. Did you read my
posts? One of my main points was that it's not important to have all web
pages validate.