|
|
Posted by Bear Bottoms on 08/12/07 17:39
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:18:33 -0500, Yrrah <Yrrah.spamnothere@hitmail.com>
wrote:
> "Bear Bottoms" <bearbottoms1@gmai.com>:
>
>> I was able to obtain CSE in the free
>> giveaway. It is hands down better than the online W3C validation
>
> Why? What are your criteria?
>
> Yrrah
I'll take this as an honest question. First of all, I am no HTML guru
though I am not inept, and I used to use W3C to validate my webpage. When
I first started using it, it produced many errors that I worked through
and fixed until it gave an error free response as Transitional. Those
errors I realized were induced using Kompozer's editor, therefore I
started using PSPad and Kompozer's source page to add to and edit the code
and have all but stopped using the editor but for viewing changes. I am
becoming quite proficient doing so.
I went from Strict to Transitional because W3C gave about 1500 errors on
the site in Strict, attributed to the font tags I was using from Kompozer.
A friend told me that the preferred method to rid those issues would be
CSS style sheets which I can't yet perform. Barring that he said to make
it Transitional and the validator would ignore the font issues.
So in Transitional, W3C validates my site as error/issue free. When GOTD
offered CSE Validator for free, I had played around with it's free version
and decided to try it. It found one error and about 20 additional issues
which W3C did not. The interface was awesome and the instructions on
repairing the issues were much much better than W3C. I am still learning
CSE, but it has been very easy for me to determine that it is a much
better tool for my purposes than W3C. Very simple.
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware website http://bearbottoms1.com
ACF freeware: http://freeware.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|