W3.org validator...

[Guest bachu]

I spent over 2 hours getting my whole site to validate 100% with w3c. I am now running valid XHTML 1.1 on www.innovateidea.com Does anyone else out there fully validate their HTML with w3c? Note:Even w3.org has invalid page more then 10 as on today…

[jlhaslip]

Yes, we do. You are not alone. And if you run Firefox, there is an extension to load a Validator onto your local machine, too, to save you the hassle of uoloading files all the time.If you use Firefox, download and install the Tidy Html Extension. As well, there is the Firebug Extension which reports the errors and warning on each page you view through the Browser, so if you are working on a site page, just a quick glance and you know if it is throwing any warnings or errors. I can see that there are 22 warnings on this page of the Forum. That isn't too bad for a page this complex. I've seen other Forums having over 200 warnings on a single page.Validation is good, but it isn't the only thing. Working web pages that don't break and that the client can use to meet their goals is the important stuff. Chances are that if you strive for the Validation, you will probably produce better results for the long-term for your clients.

[Skemcin]

For FireFox I would also recommend Chris Pederick's Web Developer extension - tons of useful stuff there.I agree with jlhaslip in that validation is something to definitely strive for but it can be trumped by a clients need for function or design.You might want to get someone familiar with English grammer to review your site. Almost every page I hit has some incorrect syntax or uses of words , and bad grammer or word choice.For example, on:http://www.innovateidea.com/seo-innovateidea.html

We are glad to introducing ourselves we are highly talented IT Peoples, with an extensive background in SEO, Internet Marketing, and Web Site Development. Now we would like to bring my skills and knowledge to work for you, in a position where we can make the same positive contribution to bottom line success that we have throughout our career.

"talented IT peoples" doesn't read very well and in the sentence following that, you change from "we" to "I" which quickly demonstrates that you are a one man show posing as a group of people. As a moonlighting freelancer, I understand why you might want to do this. But, there are ways to right content to avoid the use of "we" and "I" that allows you to express the same point.

[croatiankid]

I spent over 2 hours getting my whole site to validate 100% with w3c. I am now running valid XHTML 1.1 on www.innovateidea.com Does anyone else out there fully validate their HTML with w3c? Note:Even w3.org has invalid page more then 10 as on today…

well actually since your sending it as text/html, it isn't really valid xhtml, because it's not being sent as xhtml at all. browsers are recieving it as html. however, if you were to change it to an xhtml or xml MIME type, it would most likely break in ie6, which you definitely don't want lol

[boen_robot]

Note:Even w3.org has invalid page more then 10 as on today…

Really? Give me 3 of those.As for the MIME type issue that croatiankid is reffering to, if you can use PHP or any other means of content negotiation, you can go around this issue, but be aware that a lot more issues will follow because of it.

[croatiankid]

Yeah unfortunately I think IE7 still doesn't support xhtml, and I'm sure ie6 doesn't. It's hard to make good use of technology, which isn't even that new anymore, when the most popular user agent doesn't support it. I mean couldn't they give xhtml support in a service pack at least? Not to mention transparent PNGs, sheesh. However, that does have a solution I read somewhere on msn, I think it uses JS in CSS to get IE to use its PNG transparency thingy (it's not that IE doesn't support transparent PNGs, it's just that it's not enabled by default. Why? I don't think MS' developers know {no offense intended if there are any here}).