How to have WC3 validated pages

[Derald]

I built my site in GoLive and I'm at the intial stages of learning how to hand code. I checked my site on the WC3 validator and it had more errors than I could count.

Is there a way or piece of softward to clean up my code until I learn to hand code or edit it without deleting something necessary?

Thanks,
Derald

[ranjan]

I may be wrong but I believe that GoLive writea some custom tags for rollover images and the like.

HTML Tidy is a tool that cleans out your documents

http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/

Please note that your customs tags will get cleaned by HTML tidy and concequently you will loose the functionality.

[Narasinha]

I checked my site on the WC3 validator and it had more errors than I could count.

The W3C Validator is very handy for a page or two, but not when you have dozens (or even hundreds - ask me) of pages that you want to check. There are several stand-alone validators that you can download that you can use to check the pages while they are on your own computer. I like the one called "A Real Validator".

Many times the errors reported "cascade" in a way such that fixing the first one might eliminate several later reported errors. Looking at the errors listed and fixing them, one by one, can also be of great help in learning HTML coding. Seeing your mistake in black-and-white can be a good reminder of how specific code is supposed to be written.

And if you need a reference to see what things are allowed with certain tags, etc., I have one to recommend: Index DOT Html - The Advanced HTML Reference. The url is http://www.eskimo.com/~bloo/indexdot/html/index.html. Brian Wilson, who operates the site, also has a reference for CSS linked from that page.

[carbonize]

I personally code by hand and use a HTML editor with built in HTML validation. This is the problem of people who use the likes of Frontpage and dreamweaver.

[mikmik]

narasinha has an excellent point:
Looking at the errors listed and fixing them, one by one, can also be of great help in learning HTML coding. Seeing your mistake in black-and-white can be a good reminder of how specific code is supposed to be written.

Best way to learn that I've found!!!

Carbonize you devil(LOL) :
I personally code by hand and use a HTML editor with built in HTML validation. This is the problem of people who use the likes of Frontpage and dreamweaver.

Dreamweaver has an excellent validator and I don't see how it can be compared to frontpage anyways! But I do see your point and I just use it as an editor, started with noetpad then to Notetab lite then Drwvr.
It is invaluable being able to handcode.

[tsindos]

What is the point of having WC3 checks if the site shows what it has to show and in the way it is supposed to show it? I know I may seen a bit arrogant, but if you can get the message across, is there any point in making it WC3 validated? I believe it is the same thing as going from A to B in either a Rolls Royce or a VW Beetle (the Hitler one). Either way, you will get there to show your stuff.
Therefore, is it really necessary for WC3 validation?

[benwalsh]

Validated pages are more search engine bot friendly,at least ensure that their are no errors in the top of your code
Get the title and Meta tags correct then start the body with a h1 tag containing you main keyword

[carbonize]

You use valid HTML or XHTML so that it will render the same in every browser and, as has already been said, a valid page is more search engine friendly.

[SyrenSong]

tsindos - I gotta know -- how many browsers do you check your website on? More than just IE?

The main reason for validating a website is to make sure it not only displays correctly in multiple browsers, but also to make sure it will work properly and has appropriate information for browsers such as Lynx (a non-graphical browser) and Jaws (a "speaking" browser).

Validation confirms you're using ALT tags and background colors and a myraid of other factors that can cause your site to "display" incorrectly in a large number of browsers.

For example, without ALT tags, Lynx (and any browser where the visitors has graphics disabled won't "display" your site correctly at all. Broken links won't have any indication of what the image should be, and your site visitors will know they're missing something, but won't know what.

If you've got a graphic illustration of something related to your product line (such as depictions of increased productivity using the product) and you don't have an ALT or LONGDESC description of that graphic, Jaws won't read it, and visitors using that browser won't have important information that might otherwise cause them to buy your product.

If you don't have background colors set, a visitor who has graphics turned off may not be able to read your text because it's the same color as they're using for their desktops. Again, important information is missing from that visitor's experience at your website.

There are many other reasons for validating and these are only a small few. Do you really want to take the chance on a client's website that you designed and they paid a huge sum of money for just doesn't work?

It just makes good business sense to design a site that's accessible by the largest number of browsers and as many visitors as possible.

[SyrenSong]

Oh yeah.

And if you don't have a DOCTYPE or LANG(uage) declared, your site can really get hosed by folks visiting from foreign countries.

Imagine trying to view an English site if you're Chinese. Or a German site if you're American.

There are certain language characters that just won't display correctly if these things are set at the top of your coding.

[kneelsit]

I would have to agree that having valid code IS important - even if it is only for the 10% or so who do NOT use IE or MS products. They still represent a fair slug of my own market and why put them off by having a page that renders incorrectly on a Mac or in Mozilla,
Linux etc. It gives your visitor a poor impression and is likely to turn them off quicktime. So - there goes another possible customer!.

[ranjan]

You use valid HTML or XHTML so that it will render the same in every browser and, as has already been said, a valid page is more search engine friendly.

This is a misconception. (X)HTML has got nothing to do with what a page looks like or renders in a browser. (X)HTML is merely responsible in holding content in a structured format.

CSS is responsible for the look of a document in a browser. As you are all aware CSS capabilities differ from browser to browser. Hence even if in the above quote by carbonize (X)HTML is substituded by CSS, its wrong.

Standards ((X)HTML and CSS) DONOT guarantee cross browser websites!

[carbonize]

If you use sloppy XHTML then the page is going to be sloppy regardless of the CSS, and being valid also extends to valid CSS as well as valid XHTML/HTML.

People who swear by XHTML and CSS have obviously never tried to code a site that will look good on NS4 as well as modern browsers. Then you have to fall back on tables and good old HTML 4.01.

[jasidog]

If you're aiming for xhtml Derald then Topstyle may be what yo're looking for. It can clean up a lot of your errors and help you write valid markup.

http://www.bradsoft.com/

You're right about NS4 Carbonize, but then most that don;t see a need for xhtml and css as thier core. Probably often still don't realy make sites that work in that browser, or maybe they neglect other browsers like Konqueror. It's far more likely you'll find people from a broader range able to acess thier content with xhtml and css than otherwise .

[WEBGuru]

very insightful, nonetheless

[zbatia]

Well, hundred designers - hundred opinions including "why should I validate at all?".
You might know what means sloppy job... It's when the code is not validated. I check the knowledge of the web designer/web instructor not by checking his/her references and resume blurbs, but diving into the code they designed. It shows me all: the professional qualities, attention to details, knowledge of current standards, and much more.

We used to teach HomeSite 4.x that has built-in validator. It is quite basic comparing to the cseHTML Validator Pro that we offer to our students now (because Dreamweaver MX cannot be compared with it).
I believe it is what Derald was asking for. The latest version of the validator has XHTML support. It's highly recommended. I didn't see better than this one.

I cannot imaging my code without being validated. You will be amazed how many errors you left in your code. The validator itself was my "tutor" on current standards. Now we are working on re-design of our 60MB web site in accordance to the latest XHTML standard. W3C validator is good as a starting point.
(July 15, 2003) CSE HTML Validator v6.01
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Enjoy.