I'm stumped. I'm not so sure what is the right answer to your question. I'll do some research in Google and get back to you if I bump into an answer. You should email the people at iPage as they probably could answer your iPage question..
If you have PHP in a page though, I understand that the validator will not check this code. Is this true?..
No, that is not true. the validator will run the page which in turn will run the php code so all they see is the output of the page. just like any search engine and such. nobody but you can see the php code before it is ran...
The tools are available and free..
I can't understand why anybody would put information on public display without using available resources first..
If you're just starting out in any industry, then you better get used to standards and how to find (and adhere) to them, or the person who.
Know the standard is going to get the job you always wanted, all because you thought "mediocrity is OK" !..
Hmmmmm, what's more important: perfectly validated HTML or "lean, mean" code?.
For example, I've read for non-important graphics, eg transparent spacer/gutter GIFs, there's no point putting alt="" especially if there are a lot of them. If you remove all the alt="", you reduce your .htm file size a little. Also, not using quotation marks or hash marks for certain values eg bgcolor=000055 instead of bgcolor="#000055" or width=243 height=45 instead of width="243" height="5" is slightly less code and faster to type as well..
I like to trim unnecessary code to make my pages load faster.....but since the overall savings are still only a 1% or 2% of the total .htm file size, is it better to include all this "superfluous" code and therefore a validated document?..
But there is a big flaw in your theory, if you start cutting corners like that you will start to have problems..
NS being one of them and not just NS4.x but all versions. you need to have the # in all your hex codes and you should do the alt="" in all images. that will not slow down the rendering time..
I see all that as neccasary code. if you do your page right the htm file should be that big anyway...
I thought that it only checked code at the base level. This is why you can get errors with DHTML and Java Applets...
If you open a page what do you see? the finsihed product? that is all the validators see...
This reminds me of a psychology test I took once:.
My teacher tapes a $20 bill up on the board, and asks three students (me one of them) to come up and study the bill for about 2 minutes. She then takes the bill of of the board, and asks us to draw the bill as we remember it taking as long as we like..
Its not like any of us three were able to recreate the bill in it's entirety (artistic skills nonwithstanding). we all had something like a rectangle, with denomination in the corners, a persons face in the middle. Some people wrote out the amount at the bottom. I filled in fictitious serial numbers in the appropriate places..
Then she points out about 10 different things that none of us bothered to recreate. She then asked the typical psychological question: Why didn't you get all of these things as well? Why didn't you get ANY of these things I pointed out..
While the other students mumbled on about lacking drawing skill, short term memory loss, too many beers last night. I gave a simple answer: At the end of the day, very few things are important about a $20 bill in order to spend it..
Sure, validating your HTML code is a cool thing to do. But, at the end of the day if it properly renders in your target audience's browser(s)-you have succeeded. Validation is, as Scoutt succinctly put it, another feather in your hat..
Scoutt also mentioned another important point. Learning to code correctly (proper nesting, tag placement, correct attributes) are going to do more for you than spot validation checks. If the validator tells you that you have poorly formed code, how are you supposed to fix it if you don't have the right skill set?.
Why don't we apply this to a real internet company: Ebay. I recently read a scathing article on Ebay... how it uses depriciated code, and that it wasn't standards compliant. However, no matter what computer I use, what browser, what version... Ebay always seems to work for me. Standards or audience. They've made their choice, you make yours...
The borg's validator has absolutely no problems with those..
It's difficult to say for sure without seeing the full article to get the context, but on the face of it Web-User Magazine is plain wrong..
Right now my iPage website has over 400 errors on the validator. I plan on finding a new layout for my iPage site soon and put it up in two years taking it slowly. What I suggest is if you have a iPage site that identical HTML coding is on every page and every new page you make you keep copying and pasting the code onto the new page and editing the way you wish that you make sure you have the validator check the page you are copying it from so it has has no errors and your HTML problems will tend to be smaller.
Does that make sense?..
I think you're assuming just because I don't write perfectly validated HTML, I don't check it in the popular browsers and may unknowingly have illegible or invisible webpages. FYI, I check in NS 4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 6, 6.2, 7, IE 4, 5, 5.5, 6, Opera 5, 5.1, 6 and Mozilla 1 (still thinking about AOL). Even if I wrote perfectly validated HTML, I must still test in each browser, since some browsers render tables etc differently, anyway..
I do still use a HTML validator to catch omitted end tags. Maybe it's not worth missing #, ", alt="" etc, since it only saves a few %. If search engines start hiccuping on invalidated HTML, though I will certainly put all those # " alt="" back.....but I've just had a iPage website indexed by Google and Yahoo which appears No.1 out of tens of thousands of hits (169,000 in the case of one particular keyword search), which did not have validated HTML..
[Edited to add later NS versions.]..
So you are saying that the validator didn't tell you that you missed an alt tag or a # in front of a color??????.
And search engines have nothing to do with validated scripts, the browsers do. and test all you want, I have.
NS puke on missing # in the color codes, and sometimes the color is not what is expected. you are practicing bad habits and I was just pointing them out. code how you want, you will be the one that has to change your bad habits and that is harder than starting with good habits in the first pace...
I'm with scoutt on this one - I've also seen NN 4.xx decide it wasn't going to play because of a missing # in front of a color. It sticks in my mind because it took someone else looking at the code to point out where I'd stuffed up. In fact, now that I think of it, I had another occasion where a stylesheet wouldn't work also because of a missing #. (Yeh, yeh, I know, I'm a terrible coder who should be strung up for missing the obvious..
By the way, unless you test not only in all browsers (I also try and test in as many as possible - well 4 actually), but in all OS's then you still can't be sure of how things will render..
Oh yeah?! You're taking SIDES?! You're "with scoutt on this one"?! Them's fighting words!.
Here's an older iPage website I did:.
No # or " for colours used anywhere in the HTML at all, just in the external style sheet. Three different colour schemes for various links for example, yet still works in all versions of NS right back to 4..
(The site's a bit slow and graphics heavy though - maybe the redirect to index.asp has something to do with it as well.).
But hey, I'm starting to think validated HTML is best. Why take a chance, especially since search engines might change their algorithms in future to skip poorly coded HTML? If the quantity of webpages reaches 10 or 20 billion or something and starts to overwhelm the indexes, maybe they'll start purging all the "crap code" websites?.
So what the heck am I arguing for?..
That was the whole article. It is a section of tips for webmasters. This was one of the tips...
I don't think I'll be subscribing to that one then..
The rest of the magazine is great. The webmaster tips are a bit naff though...