- From: zoran knezevic <zoransa@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:03:59 +0200
- To: www-validator@w3.org
Hi Oliver is right you need big brush up of your code. I had similar problems last month with CJ tracking pixels you should not have any problems with making code HTML valid. Best, -- Zoran http://www.rentalio.com/ On 7/9/07, olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi Barry, > > On Jul 9, 2007, at 09:40 , Barry Harmon wrote: > > I emailed Amazon and they said that "validation is tough" and that > > I had placed the code properly. > > IMHO, "validation is tough" is a rather poor excuse. More below. > > > > My question is: Since Amazon isn't going to change their code, and > > since *my* code passed validation, what is the status of my use of > > the W3C validation icon? I guess it comes down to a question of > > should I be penalized because of Amazon? > > I fail to see the point of adding the icon if you know that what is > claims is untrue. You are quite likely to get people messaging you > that your icon usage is a lie. > > Maybe you should keep asking the developers of that web service > exactly why they can't fix their code? I had a look at your web > page's markup, and all I see are simple mistakes, trivial to fix: > > * presentational attributes (width, height, border) on the iframe > element. > width and height would be OK if your page was using XHTML 1.0 > Transitional. > border (as well as width and height) would be best removed, and > replaced with CSS > > * the iframe src has an URI, where the ampersands have to be escaped. > Replacing the & with & will do the job. > > If you can fix these yourself, you're done - your page should > validate. If you can't and have to rely on some external service to > provide you with that broken markup, tell them that, no, validation > is not tough, and that the markup can be changed very easily. > > Regards, > -- > olivier > >
Received on Monday, 9 July 2007 06:04:05 UTC