- 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
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 UTC