|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 07/14/06 05:19
Nikita the Spider wrote:
> 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.
Ok, I see what you mean, perhaps I should have said use a proper HTML
validator, such as the one from the W3C.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/about-us.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|