W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Page validates on my computer, won't validate when on my ISP.

From: Drake Wilson <drake@begriffli.ch>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 02:50:33 -0500
To: Larry Robinson <midimagic@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070530075033.GA31040@drache.begriffli.ch>

Quoth Larry Robinson <midimagic@sbcglobal.net>, on 2007-05-29 13:52:18 -0700:
> My web pages validate fine for XHTML 1.0 Strict when stored on my own computer. But after I upload them to my ISP, they fail.

That's because (as you said) they're munging the page contents, yes.

> I need to post pages in XHTML 1.0 Strict for the purposes of getting a job. But when the employer tests them with the validator, it sees the ads too, and gives me 33 validation errors.

If you need to do that for the purpose of getting a job, then you need to
host the pages somewhere that doesn't mangle them gratuitously like that.
Have you considered asking the relevant employer whether they'd be willing
to provide temporary space, or else let you, say, mail them an archive of
the relevant files rather than having to find other hosting?

> Is there any way to get the validator to ignore the ads?

That would be defeating the output of the validator.  Stuff comes before the
DOCTYPE, and there's crap tags at the end of the page that don't belong
there, and such... it's not a valid page.  That's it.  I can't comment
authoritatively on whether or not you can legitimately use the Valid XHTML
1.0 badge on such pages, but I would expect the answer to be "no".

> One of the pages which fails is:
> 
> http://geocities.com/midimagic@sbcglobal.net/home.htm

Yes, it's tag soup.

The obvious answer is "don't host your page there".  I don't know whom
you're showing that page, so I don't know what their response would be
to a page hosted at a site that adds garbage.  Mine wouldn't be positive,
but I can only speak for myself.

<off-topic amount="50%">
Incidentally, your use of element classes to abbreviate concrete styles
rather than using them to define logical elements is something of a CSS
abuse by the usual understanding, I think.  You also place inline CSS
inside comment delimiters, which renders it bogus in an XHTML (and
therefore XML) context; when parsed correctly, all of that style
information will be inside a comment and therefore go away.  Usually
external stylesheets are recommended, partly for that reason.

It's slightly dubious IMO to have a meta tag declaring the Content-Type
of an XHTML document to be text/html rather than application/xhtml+xml,
but I'm not sure that there's any consensus on that.
</off-topic>

   ---> Drake Wilson
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 07:48:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:24 GMT