XHTML valid

[whole diary]

[devon_metro]

I'm not sure whether the code is written by the forum software creators, however can I suggest looking at this?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstgreatwestern.info%2Fcoffeeshop%2F

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

An Error Has Occurred!
Session verification failed. Please try logging out and back in again, and then try again

[TerminalJunkie]

It's all Graham's fault - all the errors are within the table at the top of the page, and valid XHTML requires all values to be delimited by quotes: for example, <td width=224> has to be <td width='224'> or <td width="224">.

You can't have any unclosed tags, either: all the <tr> and <td> tags need to be closed, and even <br> on it's own isn't valid (but since there isn't a </br> tag so you have to self-close it as <br />).

Still, I feel some kudos is due - I doubt even relex on a bad day has managed 95 mistakes in twelve lines!

[Btline]

Don't understand a word in this thread.

But would like to add that the website seems 100% fine from my end. What's the complaining for? Does it really matter if "<td width=224> has to be <td width='224'>"?

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Don't understand a word in this thread.

But would like to add that the website seems 100% fine from my end. What's the complaining for? Does it really matter if "<td width=224> has to be <td width='224'>"?

its ok for me too its only done one thing for me and it wasnt that bad but i will just say that if you want to be really confused , is this an implosion?...<td width='-224'>

[devon_metro]

Don't understand a word in this thread.

But would like to add that the website seems 100% fine from my end. What's the complaining for? Does it really matter if "<td width=224> has to be <td width='224'>"?

Because to display an "XHTML Valid" symbol, the page must actually be valid. Its similar to a Corgi registered company not actually being Corgi registered.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Don't understand a word in this thread.

But would like to add that the website seems 100% fine from my end. What's the complaining for? Does it really matter if "<td width=224> has to be <td width='224'>"?

Because to display an "XHTML Valid" symbol, the page must actually be valid. Its similar to a Corgi registered company not actually being Corgi registered.

+

ohh so like citylink being awarded courier of the year?

[grahame]

Oh ... it prolly woz valid till I got me mitz on irt.

Technical explanation for those who are asking "what the *****".

There are lots of flavours of HTML^▸ (Hypertext Markup Language) - "Hypertext Markup Language" which forms the majority of pages like this. Originally pages were hand-coded and most of them contained a few inconsitencies, so browsers were written to be pretty forgiving ... but as more and more pages have become software generated, attempts have been made to tighten the standard; there are various such standards and XHTML is one of them.   I like it and (when I remember  ) I stick with it, as by using a standard, it should make pages far more consistent in how they're displayed.

The logo on the bottom of the pages comes with the software as shipped.  Which probably did pass the tests. The changes that I have made to make the site a bit more tailored don't pass, it would appear;  sure - I need to add some quotes and closures ... or take the logo off.  In the great scheme of things, the change won't bring back any train services though.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

Oh ... it prolly woz valid till I got me mitz on irt.

Technical explanation for those who are asking "what the *****".

There are lots of flavours of HTML^▸ (Hypertext Markup Language) - "Hypertext Markup Language" which forms the majority of pages like this. Originally pages were hand-coded and most of them contained a few inconsitencies, so browsers were written to be pretty forgiving ... but as more and more pages have become software generated, attempts have been made to tighten the standard; there are various such standards and XHTML is one of them.   I like it and (when I remember  ) I stick with it, as by using a standard, it should make pages far more consistent in how they're displayed.

The logo on the bottom of the pages comes with the software as shipped.  Which probably did pass the tests. The changes that I have made to make the site a bit more tailored don't pass, it would appear;  sure - I need to add some quotes and closures ... or take the logo off.  In the great scheme of things, the change won't bring back any train services though.

ok just out of interest, how many people affected are using the new safari 3

[grahame]

I have fixed the XHTML - it was reporting (err) 95 errors and 1 warning .... and I have added a poll as I would like to know what (if any) practical difference I have made.  Please vote - I want to learn from this.

[Btline]

What's changed?

(I use Safari version 4.)

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

im on 4 too

[grahame]

What's changed?

(I use Safari version 4.)

I added a kilogram of double quotes, a handful of alt tags, 4 closures and replaced an & with &amp; ... I may have forgotten something, but that's the broad outline of what I did!

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

my switch from firefox to the new safari was nothing to do with what happened to me then

[devon_metro]

I have fixed the XHTML - it was reporting (err) 95 errors and 1 warning .... and I have added a poll as I would like to know what (if any) practical difference I have made.  Please vote - I want to learn from this.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't complaining, simply pointing it out