Murray
Fri Aug 25 05:37:27 CDT 2006
If you are pasting your code into the validator, yes, it'll have a problem
with the scripting.
--
Murray
--------------
MVP FrontPage
"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uMykPJByGHA.476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> Thanks. I am using the online Validator from W3C when I was reading some
> articles.
>
> I am not sure but I think it has problem with ASP pages. In any case,
> I've done with it by removing all VBscript codes and test it again pure
> HTML tags.
>
> Thanks again.
> "Ronx" <ronx917@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:enp2NK1xGHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> When validating, you must check the page as returned from a server, not
>> the page as saved on your hard disc.
>> Any unrendered ASP code will return an error in a validator - it must be
>> rendered by a server.
>> HTML Validator sounds like a software product I used to use - perfect for
>> .htm pages, useless for .asp pages, for the above reasons.
>> --
>> Ron Symonds - Microsoft MVP (FrontPage)
>> Reply only to group - emails will be deleted unread.
>> FrontPage Support:
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/
>>
>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23%23e%232vxxGHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for all of your inputs, and since many points are similar so I
>>> just replied the first one in response to all.
>>>
>>> (1) About the doctype: No, I did not mean just by inserting doctype and
>>> hope it'd automatically comply with the standard. Did some homework
>>> before asked.
>>>
>>> (2) About the include file: Yes, it is about the include files. I did
>>> the test on the following - If include files are listed, HTML Validator
>>> can't even identify doctype and some meta tags, and once include files
>>> are removed, it can detect it ok. So it is about the include files.
>>>
>>> (3) Other HTML standards: All points are correct. Many of my HTML tags
>>> are incorrect not because of ASP pages but because of the tool I used
>>> (FP at this point) and lack of correct HTML knowledge of myself - not to
>>> blame anything or anyone. I did run test on pages that have removed the
>>> major portion of codes and cleaned up many HTML errors.
>>>
>>> (4) Finished vs. unprocessed page: It's "finished" product - I guess. I
>>> tested on the main template of our site, and by default, the main
>>> content area is empty, but it has several include files and some ASP
>>> codes to display product categories and other elements. Other static
>>> texts or forms or codes will be inserted into the main content area
>>> based on the type of pages is needed. In that case, some are unfinished
>>> (e.g. user input form) and some will become finished (e.g. confirmation
>>> page). Pure processing page are excluded from being modified by this
>>> template.
>>>
>>> (5) Side question about the table height attribute: According to W3C,
>>> XHTML 1.0 Transitional does not support table's " height" attribute so I
>>> removed it from one page (just for testing before doing some major
>>> errors). It appears no difference, but I am not so sure. I have many
>>> tables with height attribute and table is a headache for me. So the
>>> question is - Shall I follow the standard and removing all table height
>>> attributes or leaving there will produce no harms, if not good?
>>>
>>> Continue from (4), I did find, HTML Validator will still give errors for
>>> left codes such as <%productquantity%> - just an example, it will give
>>> error messages, such as Windows runtime error (can't remember correctly)
>>> or font attribute error which those fonts are not listed in this page.
>>>
>>> I assumed header section has been interpreted correctly, because I could
>>> find our site and major pages from Goggle with our description tag. On
>>> the other hand, HTML Validator says the other way.
>>>
>>> In any case, my intension of the question is very simple. I am
>>> satisfied with our pages but also wish to make it more "compliant" with
>>> HTML standard, so they are cleaner and maybe good for search engine and
>>> visitors.
>>>
>>> In fact, I am just confused by if ASP page is counted as HTML page? If
>>> it's not, some errors are fine to be forgotten and I could just use
>>> plain page for verification and then insert codes. If it is treated
>>> 100%as HTML page, I then have to dig deeper into those codes.
>>>
>>> "Jens Peter Karlsen [FP-MVP]" <jpkarlsen@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:uqaoe2t1jrrp58m4ekumh3o4500h367ava@4ax.com...
>>>> It will be interpreted correctly if it is written correctly. Just
>>>> because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
>>>> compliant with that doctype. If you give us links to one of the asp
>>>> pages you have problems with, we can give you some pointers on how to
>>>> make them compliant.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:26:46 +0800, "xfile"
>>>> <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test
>>>>>some
>>>>>ASP pages, it showed countless errors.
>>>>>
>>>>>If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
>>>>>standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Stefan B Rusynko" <sbr_enjoy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:eO%23O0voxGHA.2168@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the
>>>>>> users and
>>>>>> Search engines
>>>>>> - how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
>>>>>> wrote your code
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _____________________________________________
>>>>>> SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
>>>>>> "Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
>>>>>> To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
>>>>>> _____________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:elWdFBnxGHA.4336@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> | Hi,
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
>>>>>> CodePage
>>>>>> | at the very top of the page.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> | compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | Many thanks in advance.
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> |
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>