Re: [WSG] Last error on Validator
Title: Message Yes you should, If its in your HTML it should me amp; not Thats why we validate :) - Original Message - From: Taco Fleur To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:11 AM Subject: [WSG] Last error on Validator http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdevelopment.tacofleur.com%2Findex%2Fmethodology%2F Is this something I should really go and change? Its just feels weird to go and change the to amp; in the url values. Taco Fleur Blog http://www.tacofleur.com/index/blog/Methodology http://www.tacofleur.com/index/methodology/ 0421 851 786Tell me and I will forgetShow me and I will rememberTeach me and I will learn
RE: [WSG] Last error on Validator
Title: Message Absolutely, one of the big ones in designing a CMS (or blog)or making sure a static site is standards compliant (see http://www.webboy.net/presentation/validation.cfm) Also all " in the text should really be quot; (and no I really don't see the need for the curly varieties, text is text and #8220; and #8221; are really not required). It's really not that difficult on a (server side) dynamic system. Wherever you dynamically add a query string, use the amp; entity. Just get into the habit of doing it that way. P http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdevelopment.tacofleur.com%2Findex%2Fmethodology%2F Is this something I should really go and change? Its just feels weird to go and change the to amp; in the url values.
Re: [WSG] Last error on Validator
On Friday, January 30, 2004, at 09:11 PM, Taco Fleur wrote: http://validator.w3.org/ check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdevelopment.tacofleur.com%2Findex%2Fmethodology% 2F Is this something I should really go and change? Its just feels weird to go and change the to amp; in the url values. Well, that's what's needed for compliance, and *any* application that intends to stick around really needs to think about the future. Sure, today's browsers (that you know of) might 'deal with' the plain , but you can't be certain that's the case in the future. Hence the need for validation to a standard. The fact that it works, or that you've always done it aren't valid reasons to continue doing it -- especially since HTML (especially v4.01) is the past, and XML is the future. Justin French * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
