Re: Errors in your validation

Dear Jucca

Your responses to this type of email always makes my day!!
 

Debbie

---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> 
To: Willy Walle <whwalle@googlemail.com> 
Cc: www-validator@w3.org 
Sent: Fri, 25 May 2012 22:12:24 +0300 
Subject: Re: Errors in your validation

> 2012-05-24 20:20, Willy Walle wrote: 
> 
> > today I have got a validation from you about my website: 
> 
> No, I think you asked the W3C Markup Validator to check whether your 
> document complies with the Document Type Definition it purports to 
> comply with, and it did exactly that. 
> 
> > http://youlookvideo.de 
> > 
> > There were more than 200 errors picked from you, 
> 
> It looks rather hopeless. I wonder why the page declares an XHTML 
> document type when its author has clearly no idea of XHTML. Well, it’s a 
> mix of old-style HTML and XHTML, so validation is rather pointless. It 
> will just tell you it’s all wrong, but it tells that rather verbosely. 
> 
> To start with, XHTML is case-sensitive. You can’t just use <META> 
> instead of <meta>. And in XHTML, any occurrence of “&” as data character 
> must be escaped (e.g. as “&amp;”). 
> 
> > but when I checked it, all of them have been ok. 
> 
> Whether it’s ok to someone is irrelevant. Reportable markup errors are 
> reportable independently of people’s feelings. 
> 
> > So what happened. 
> 
> You asked for a formal check and you got it. 
> 
> > With other websites of mine was similiar... 
> 
> Too bad. Mixing old-style HTML and XHTML doesn’t really hurt browsers. 
> But it means that you cannot effectively validate your documents. The 
> mix causes so many error messages that it would take ages to distinguish 
> these syntax errors from other errors that might actually affect 
> browsers, search engines, or other relevant software. 
> 
> > So, I think you have to check your algorithm? 
> 
> No, you need to check your HTML code. 
> 
> Yucca 
------- End of Original Message -------