On Feb 22, 2017, at 1:00 AM, Greg Raven <[email protected]> wrote: > AMP seems better suited to programmatically-generated web pages, not manually > maintained static pages. The main problem I have with AMP for static pages is > that there is no way to validate AMP code ... each page will generate a bunch > of errors due to AMP's non-standard HTML. Some of my static sites have tens > of thousands of pages, and there's no way I'm 1) purposely creating erroneous > code on each page, or 2) wading through a super-massive syntax error report > hoping to winnow out the few non-AMP errors. YMMV.
Hello Greg. I am not exactly sure what you mean by the above, but all of the pages on my website are static pages which I do in fact manually maintain via some AppleScripts that Jim Derry wrote, which allow me to run Balthisar Tidy for Work from within BBEdit. It is a very nice combination of text and HTML editing tools. Not only that, but I have been in close communication with Jim, and he has been making certain improvements to his app, so that it can handle AMP’s peculiarities, such as its proprietary tags, and AMP’s insistence on keeping all of Google’s scripting codes on a single line. Otherwise, the AMP validator will not pass an AMP HTML document. You will see errors like “text [CDATA]” which Balthisar Tidy for Work can now correct by putting the scripts all on one line, including the closing “</script>” tag. For the record, in case you were not aware of it, you can add AMP’s non-standard tags to Balthisar Tidy for Work, so that it overlooks them. In short, I tidy ALL of my AMP documents from within BBEdit itself, simply by choosing the Balthisar Tidy for Work scripts under BBEdit’s scripts menu. It works great. There are actually several ways to easily validate AMP code. The first is the AMP Project’s own online validation tool, which you can find here: https://validator.ampproject.org/# <https://validator.ampproject.org/#> I have used it many, many times to validate my docs, and now all of my HTML pass with flying colors. Google’s Chrome browser also has the AMP validator built into it. Likewise, there is a plugin for Firefox as well — I am not sure if it is still actually being developed or not, but i have it installed -- which allows you to validate via its browser console. However, I prefer the AMP Project’s online validator. It is very quick. Just give it a URL, and seconds later, it tells if your doc passed, or else what is wrong with it. I hope the above helps. I too was rather frustrated by the AMP validation errors, until I finally understood why they were occurring. Kind regards, Bill K. -- This is the BBEdit Talk public discussion group. If you have a feature request or would like to report a problem, please email "[email protected]" rather than posting to the group. Follow @bbedit on Twitter: <http://www.twitter.com/bbedit> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BBEdit Talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/bbedit.
