On 12/24/2009 9:35 AM, Danny Kile wrote: > Phillip Jones wrote: >> JeffM wrote: >>> Danny Kile wrote: >>>> I use a program called Local Website Archive. >>>> >>>> http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm >>> >>> I find it fascinating that the website for a company in that business >>> doesn't pass muster: >>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.aignes.com/lwa.htm >>> 5 Errors >>> >>> Compare: >>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modified.html >>> >> Who says that Company Web Designers (whether in house or paid) pay one >> whit attention about W3C specifications. >> >> Granted the ones the are here have had it hammered in their head. I'd be >> very surprised if MS, Adobe, Intuit if you were check theirs would be. 5 >> error is not a heck of a lot. >> >> On my own site I've spent literally months (not every day and not every >> minute) re working mine to be W#C compliant to at least XML (XHTML) 1.0. >> Transitional spec. And I still not sure I've go everything. >> > I checked Mocrosoft.com, cnn.com, tvguide.com, weather.com, adobe.com > and uweather.com thet all had hundreds of errors. All their site seem to > work just fine, so much for validator. I did mozilla.org and it was the > only site that passed. > > Danny
So much for validator? The validator checks to see if the code that makes up the HTML/CSS is correct. If it's not correct, it generates a validation warning/error. If it's not correct, it's not correct. There are no two way about this. The fact that a web site appears to function correctly doesn't mean the HTML/CSS has no problems. Some problems can be big and some can be small. Some will affect only certain browsers, some will affect only certain parts of the application, etc. Are you really saying that if the site appears to work to your standards even with validation errors, that the validator has no value? _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
