php4 and encoded ampersands (was Re: [WSG] google and validation)
not a third party on the planet that knows how to write a valid script tag or encode ampersands... I've sometimes had to modify existing php and perl scripts to handle encoded ampersands. It seems that neither php 4's $_GET or $_REQUEST nor perl's param handle encoded ampersands in query strings (you often end up with amp;key rather than just key) so I often have to handle this in the script itself. Its not hard to do but if there are are lot of scripts or messy legacy code it can add a bit of hassle. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: php4 and encoded ampersands (was Re: [WSG] google and validation)
Michael MD wrote: not a third party on the planet that knows how to write a valid script tag or encode ampersands... I've sometimes had to modify existing php and perl scripts to handle encoded ampersands. It seems that neither php 4's $_GET or $_REQUEST nor perl's param handle encoded ampersands in query strings (you often end up with amp;key rather than just key) so I often have to handle this in the script itself. This sounds like an error in the URL, not in the parser. In a URL, an character as data should be represented as %26 In a URL, an character as a query string part separator should be represented as In HTML (including an HTML representation of a URL), an character should be represented as amp; The user agent (e.g. browser, bot, etc) should decode the amp; in the HTML to get in the DOM, so when it requests the URL from the webserver, it requests . It sounds like amp; is being requested. So the fault is in the tool making the request, not in the tool parsing it. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend extra time making a validation error free page for the sake of validation when third party's code is embedded. Surely the above example is an easy fix, but how about embedding google calendar or other scripts? Wherever possible, yes. It removes noise from debugging/validation reports. The most common errors are pretty easy to fix, too - it seems there's not a third party on the planet that knows how to write a valid script tag or encode ampersands... but other than that it's often ok from a validation point of view. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
So, Gunlaug, in essence, (essence being the operative word), you do validate your site by using tidy? Correct? I mean if you trust tidy to correct your code and all the code that tidy puts out is, as you say, 99.9% effective then that is kinda like validating, right? And Ben, are you saying you validate or not? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
On Oct 18, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Brett Patterson wrote: I understand what you are saying to a degree. But what YOU don't understand is that by validating a page, you are more ensured that your page will work for everyone. So it is an easy fix, but it has nothing to do with embedding Google calendar or other scripts. It is just a link. Whereas embedding means actually having the calendar visible in the page. A COMPLETELY different story. If you don't validate then you cannot know any mistakes that may make users frustrated and/or leave the site. Also, others, such as those who are using the site through a screen reader may not be able to. That is the first thing any halfway decent coder/designer/developer knows. And I am not implying that you are no good, but you really need to rethink about validation. Brett, I also understand what you were saying to a degree, however I don't think you really get what I was curious about how other deal with this. I used to be so proud displaying 'xhtml/css validated' label on every site I built, I stopped doing that maybe two years or a year ago, but by not doing that, I was not going backward, and stopped caring whether my codes validate or not. Today, if it's an easy fix, even a bit difficult ones, I always spend extra time fixing the validation errors. I think I am always in progress as far as web standard concerns, I have learned the good and better practice from this list, and I apply them to my work, and I rarely need to worry whether a page I code from scratch will break due to the missing closing tag or extra div placing in a wrong place. But my pragmatic side and the common sense taught me better in term of web standards and accessibility I think, I deliver every project to my clients with professional pride and clear conscious that I have done the best I could possibly done in terms of the accessibility and cleaner code concerned, though they may not be pixel perfect in IE 6, but I know in full knowledge that none of my clients will come back to me saying something is broken when they started adding content or their customers told them some area on their the site don't work and cause by validation errors. There is also a provision that whoever updates the site, and who misses a closing tag or inserting an improper tag, the page won't break. Every site I built, is using xhtml 1.0 strict doctype (not interested to enter the html strict vs xhtml strict argument). So if it's just a matter of 'ampersand' in the link from a third party script, I will fix it not for the sake of validation, but to make myself feel better that 'I do care'. But if I am embedding, say, an iframe, I am not gonna to replace the iframe for the sake of validation, then google for a JS script (since I can't write one myself) to make IE handles object tag so that I can showoff: see, another xhtm/css validated site I just did. Well, I admit I used to use validated tag to make flash validate when I first started learning web standards, but over the years, I have learned far more important things about web standards and accessibility that I can afford to not care a few validations errors caused by iframe or . As far as writing another IE script, is it that hard for you to do? To help users that may view your site, view it trouble free? Huh? I googled this: http://www.sharealayout.com/tutorials/replacing-the-IFRAME-by-the-OBJECT-in-XHTML-1.1/157/4/ If you think it worths all the trouble to make IE the inferior browser behaves like a Grade A ones, perhaps you are missing the substance of web standards? Just my humble 2 cents. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
And Ben, are you saying you validate or not? I aim for sites to validate unless there's an immovable reason why not (unmodifiable third party code, legally locked code, unable to prevent users creating errors, etc). So I suppose for your scenario the simpler answer is just yes, because the code's in your control. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
Brett Patterson wrote: So, Gunlaug, in essence, (essence being the operative word), you do validate your site by using tidy? Correct? I mean if you trust tidy to correct your code and all the code that tidy puts out is, as you say, 99.9% effective then that is kinda like validating, right? Pretty much so, although tidying is an active process while validating is pretty passive. http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_07.html If my Tidy gives up on my markup, then it's time to ask the validator. In such cases I go back and forth between validating, tidying and cross-browser checking until the problem is tidy, valid and solved. May I add that I don't really trust any software - my own creations included. So, when I'm really bored I attack 'em with all I've got and then some. My Tidy has survived all my attacks quite well. Always some weak spots that may be overcome by cross-checking and making notes on what to look out for. My Tidy disagrees with the validator on a few points - like MSIE down-level conditional comments, and I haven't bothered fixing my Tidy on these points since the ones I've encountered are so few and easy to remember. Otherwise I think Dave Raggett got it more or less right in the original... http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/ ...but, as I say in my article, I'm not impressed by what others have done to Tidy later. Some releases/attachments are ok, while others are crippled by someone's personal preferences. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] google and validation
Hello all, A client wants a link to google maps to shows where a property is located (there are 30+ properties, so 30+ pages with links to google maps). The trouble is, the pages no longer validate because of the url needed to get to the map. An example is: a href=http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=qhl=engeocode=q=pl28+8jsie=UTF8ll=50.524341,-5.02367spn=0.017789,0.038624t=hz=15; Just changing the 's to amp;'s doesn't seem to do it . . . I feel sure someone has encountered this, and overcome it? Thanks, Bob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
Care to tell us what exactly the validator tells you is wrong? /Svip 2008/10/18 designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all, A client wants a link to google maps to shows where a property is located (there are 30+ properties, so 30+ pages with links to google maps). The trouble is, the pages no longer validate because of the url needed to get to the map. An example is: a href= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=qhl=engeocode=q=pl28+8jsie=UTF8ll=50.524341,-5.02367spn=0.017789,0.038624t=hz=15 Just changing the 's to amp;'s doesn't seem to do it . . . I feel sure someone has encountered this, and overcome it? Thanks, Bob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
From: Svip To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Care to tell us what exactly the validator tells you is wrong? /Svip 2008/10/18 designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello all, A client wants a link to google maps to shows where a property is located (there are 30+ properties, so 30+ pages with links to google maps). The trouble is, the pages no longer validate because of the url needed to get to the map. An example is: a href=http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=qhl=engeocode=q=pl28+8jsie=UTF8ll=50.524341,-5.02367spn=0.017789,0.038624t=hz=15; Just changing the 's to amp;'s doesn't seem to do it . . . I feel sure someone has encountered this, and overcome it? Thanks, Bob Hi Svip, There are several ampersands as you see, but also this: Line 84, Column 77: reference not terminated by REFC delimiter. …maps?f=qhl=engeocode=q=pl28+8jsie=UTF8ll=50.524341,-5.02367spn=0.017789If you meant to include an entity that starts with , then you should terminate it with ;. Another reason for this error message is that you inadvertently created an entity by failing to escape an character just before this text. which refers to the '=' before the utf8. Or is it all that cause the problem? That single URL finds 24 errors altogether. ??? Thanks, Bob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
designer wrote: which refers to the '=' before the utf8. Or is it all that cause the problem? That single URL finds 24 errors altogether. Did you change them all? Because that's all I had to do to make your sample validate... -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
This is a good question. I would recommend the following page to view. http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#amp Here is the code that works for me: a href= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=qamp;hl=enamp;geocode=amp;q=pl28+8jsamp;ie=UTF8amp;ll=50.524341,-5.02367amp;spn=0.017789,0.038624amp;t=hamp;z=15;You can link here!/a *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
On Oct 18, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Brett Patterson wrote: This is a good question. I would recommend the following page to view. http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#amp Here is the code that works for me: a href=http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=qamp;hl=enamp;geocode=amp;q=pl28+8jsamp;ie=UTF8amp;ll=50.524341,-5.02367amp;spn=0.017789,0.038624amp;t=hamp;z=15 You can link here!/a Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend extra time making a validation error free page for the sake of validation when third party's code is embedded. Surely the above example is an easy fix, but how about embedding google calendar or other scripts? I am not implying validation isn't important nor should be ignored. But as we in this list know it's not something that matters much as far as accessible site concerns. Do people today actually still trying to make the page validate by way of proper xhtml markup that may create problem in IE and then write another script to hack the IE? tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
I understand what you are saying to a degree. But what YOU don't understand is that by validating a page, you are more ensured that your page will work for everyone. So it is an easy fix, but it has nothing to do with embedding Google calendar or other scripts. It is just a link. Whereas embedding means actually having the calendar visible in the page. A COMPLETELY different story. If you don't validate then you cannot know any mistakes that may make users frustrated and/or leave the site. Also, others, such as those who are using the site through a screen reader may not be able to. That is the first thing any halfway decent coder/designer/developer knows. And I am not implying that you are no good, but you really need to rethink about validation. As far as writing another IE script, is it that hard for you to do? To help users that may view your site, view it trouble free? On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 9:00 PM, tee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 18, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Brett Patterson wrote: This is a good question. I would recommend the following page to view. http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/problems.html#amp Here is the code that works for me: a href= http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=qamp;hl=enamp;geocode=amp;q=pl28+8jsamp;ie=UTF8amp;ll=50.524341,-5.02367amp;spn=0.017789,0.038624amp;t=hamp;z=15http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=qhl=engeocode=q=pl28+8jsie=UTF8ll=50.524341,-5.02367spn=0.017789,0.038624t=hz=15You can link here!/a Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend extra time making a validation error free page for the sake of validation when third party's code is embedded. Surely the above example is an easy fix, but how about embedding google calendar or other scripts? I am not implying validation isn't important nor should be ignored. But as we in this list know it's not something that matters much as far as accessible site concerns. Do people today actually still trying to make the page validate by way of proper xhtml markup that may create problem in IE and then write another script to hack the IE? tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] google and validation
tee wrote: Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend extra time making a validation error free page for the sake of validation when third party's code is embedded. Surely the above example is an easy fix, but how about embedding google calendar or other scripts? I rarely ever spend extra time on it, but I do like to save time on debugging later by checking and cleaning up my own and third party's code early - and often. If something is going to break anyway, it better break early. I use the one click - 1/10 of a second processing in HTML Tidy shortcut all the time, which means I actually have problems creating or leaving non-valid parts in a page even when wanting to - for testing-purposes and alike. Embedded scripts are automatically commented out by my Tidy - thus ignored by the validator, so no problems there. Google code and similar sometimes means my Tidy performs doctype-downgrading, which isn't much of a problem either, IMO. If the source-code is only good for Transitional, then Transitional it is. If I want a pass on Strict when Tidy says it is only Transitional, I'll have to perform the extra tidying and testing myself to make sure it works, before calling on Tidy again to check and confirm. Sometimes I even validate my work, but not often since my Tidy got it right in 99.9% of all cases anyway. The validator does a better job at informing me about what's wrong than Tidy does though, so if I'm more confused than usual the validator is a nice to have. The cleaning-up process I'm very much depending on in my daily work, seems to only work properly with the original, customized, Tidy-version integrated in my old editor though, which is why I haven't changed basic editing-tool for my own work for years. I'll probably have to customize it, and my Tidy, for (X)HTML 5 one day, so it doesn't trip on new elements and attributes. I normally only use my much newer and more user-friendly editors when I'm looking at other people's pages - like yours :-) - since I've found their newer Tidy-versions (if they have one) and integration of it near useless. They seem to have become too lenient, and many of the integrated Tidy's are almost set in stone and can't be properly customized through the interface no matter what. I am not implying validation isn't important nor should be ignored. But as we in this list know it's not something that matters much as far as accessible site concerns. Do people today actually still trying to make the page validate by way of proper xhtml markup that may create problem in IE and then write another script to hack the IE? Validation _isn't_ important at all in itself, but making sure the markup and whatever else is in there is actually in accordance with specs before one starts to curse various browsers for their failures, sure makes those curses more valid :-) After all: most cross-browser problems are caused by invalid and/or nonsensical markup and CSS, so quickly knowing in which direction one should direct those curses saves time and frustration. Can't say I've seen IE fail because of validity, but of course one in rare cases has to add something (still valid) to the markup in order to avoid an IE bug or two. Nearly all IE bugs can be fixed without touching the markup though - if the source-code is valid and logical, and, as mentioned, embedded scripts don't create validity-problems. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
