- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:23:47 +1000
- To: taylor@loopwise.com
- CC: www-validator@w3.org
Taylor Reaume wrote: > there is a bunch of errors on that, can you send me a quote on how much it > would cost for you to fix those errros? Thanks, This is not a commercial operation, the volunteers subscribed to this list don't offer their services through it. We can, however, offer advice to help you work through the problems yourself. > for my site http://www.seoarsenal.com The first thing you need to do is decide which DTD you wish to validate against. This includes an HTML 4.01 Transitional DOCTYPE and an XHTML 1.0 Strict DOCTYPE. Based on the XML empty element syntax you've used, I'm guessing you want to use XHTML; although for someone with your experience, I'd recommend you stick with HTML 4.01 Transitional for now and don't use XML syntax (eg. <meta />, <link />, etc. Take out the / from the end and just use <meta>, <link>, etc.). Use this DOCTYPE and remove the others: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> Fixing those issues will solve at least the first 10 errors, though probably many more that I didn't even look at. For script elements, instead of using: <script language="JavaScript"> ... </script> (or equivalent) use: <script type="text/javascript"> ... </script> > and also, http://www.loopwise.com This one is missing the DOCTYPE, so that validator doesn't know which DTD to validate against. However, while including an HTML 4.01 Transitional DOCTYPE is probably the best option for you, be prepared that adding the above DOCTYPE will trigger a more standards compliant rendering mode in browsers (lookup DOCTYPE sniffing for more info), while at present, they all render in quirks mode. Use this DOCTYPE instead, at least to start with. <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> It will allow you to validate, but it won't trigger standards mode in browsers, and thus won't appear to break many more things (although such things would already be broken, browsers do a reasonable job of recovering). For the remaining errors, work through them one at a time, be sure to read the FAQ entries and search the archives first. If you still have difficulty, let us know which errors in particular you don't understand. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2005 02:25:22 UTC