|
|
Posted by Nikita the Spider on 07/13/06 14:13
In article <1152792292.848777.163870@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
"Chaddy2222" <rockradio2000@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> > Code well-formed and valid code, and use a validator.
> That should be the W3C validator by the way, http://validator.w3.org
> Don't bother with any other validator, they are not actually any good
> and will cost you money.
I beg to differ. =) The W3C's validator is definitely the gold standard,
but there are a number of other validators available that use the same
technology behind the scenes and are not to be dismissed. They might
even offer features that the W3C Validator doesn't. For instance, the
WDG validator (http://htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/index.html.en) gives
extra warnings that the W3C Validator doesn't and can validate up to 100
pages at once, and mine (see my sig) can validate an entire site, does
link checking along the way and has some other nice features too. This
doesn't make one better than the other; they just serve different needs.
You're right that there are some products of dubious merit that call
themselves validators, but there's no need to paint with such a broad
brush.
Other than this quibble, I agree with all of the other excellent advice
posted so far in this thread.
Cheers
--
Philip
http://NikitaTheSpider.com/
Whole-site HTML validation, link checking and more
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|