Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Markup Validator Upgraded

Posted by timothy on from the these-guys-have-some-say-in-the-matter dept.

comforteagle writes "The W3C has upgraded their markup validation service to include easier navigation, official bug tracking support, 'verbose' error messages, fixed output bugs, and improved documentation. Aside from simply using the W3C's site you can download your own version. Mmmm "banana flavor"."

12 comments

  1. From the release notes... by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 4, Funny
    The release notes include:
    27. Upgraded to properly format reports for triple digit bug counts. Closes crash and formatting bugs for Front Page, GeoCities, homepage.aol.com, MSN, and other notoriously malformed site formats.
    1. Re:From the release notes... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Where did you find the release notes, and where does that TinyURL link of yours point?

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:From the release notes... by Vaevictis666 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      TinyURL points to a check on slashdot, but that could change at any time :P

      Of course, we already know that /. is not up-to-date for good html, but meh.

    3. Re:From the release notes... by Carnildo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By playing around with the "doctype" menu on the validator, it looks like Slashdot is most likely written using HTML 4.01 transitional (149 errors), and least likely to be written using XHTML 1.0 Basic (2216 errors). Maybe the editors should change the "doctype" declaration for the pages.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    4. Re:From the release notes... by innerlimit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quite funny :)

      I noticed that Blogger has done a complete redesign using standards (backed by many of the Big Names in the buzzing site-design industry, including my favourite)

      I remember A List Apart did an 'Extreme Makeover' on our beloved frontpage, wondering wether we'll ever get to see it happen! (must be a hell-uv-a job...)

      --
      The Awful Truth
  2. CSS3 support by POWRSURG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would be nice if they had CSS3 (instead of CSS2) support for validating turned on by default. A bit quirky, but it is at least better then before. Now it generates warnings instead of errors for valid CSS3 that it doesn't implement.

    I wondered when /. was going to mention this. It's been around for at least few days now.

    1. Re:CSS3 support by POWRSURG · · Score: 1

      Hmm, this is odd. I can turn warnings and medium to all and profile to CSS3 and my page validates on their server. I see their method uses the validator?uri=SOMEURL method to validate. Switching to the check/referer?warning=2&profile=css3&usermedium=al l method to validate with everything turned on results in the validator producing an error CSS for [href^="http://"].

    2. Re:CSS3 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wondered when /. was going to mention this. It's been around for at least few days now.


      Dickhead. Submit a story yourself and get the news out sooner.

    3. Re:CSS3 support by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe you should post this feature request to the Validator mailing list?

      I've been on the list for a short while now, and the people there are very helpful and willing to take on suggestions. I'm not a html guru, but I was able to contribute in my own small way to the new validator, by pointing out some spelling/layout mistakes in the beta version.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  3. One question: by flikx · · Score: 1

    Why can't Slashdot be validated??

    --
    One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
    1. Re:One question: by cwis42 · · Score: 1
      Why can't Slashdot be validated??

      Did you try to click your own link? It seems something changed in the /. web server configuration, as it is now allowed to validate the site directly withing Validator. Or maybe the IP address of validator changed and they were filtering it?