affordable website design

Discussion in 'HTML' started by sq58cd0pxz9ms2g6xich@gmail.com, Nov 29, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Hi great news group.

    Thanks,

    <a href=http://www.constantwebsite.com> Professional
    Website Design </a>
    , Nov 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Major Guest

    In message
    <>,
    writes
    >Hi great news group.
    >
    >Thanks,
    >
    ><a href=http://www.constantwebsite.com> Professional
    >Website Design </a>


    Only 71 validation errors...
    --
    Chris Hughes
    "There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start and so on."
    http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk
    The Major, Nov 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > Only 71 validation errors...
    > --
    > Chris Hughes


    For fun I once ran sites offering web design services through the
    validators. Very few of them passed!
    Helpful person, Nov 29, 2007
    #3
  4. On Nov 29, 9:20 am, Helpful person <> wrote:
    > > Only 71 validation errors...

    > For fun I once ran sites offering web design services through the
    > validators. Very few of them passed!


    I think there are a total of about 27 websites out there that will
    pass, and the owners of them are probably regulars in this group...

    As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
    meaningless.
    Travis Newbury, Nov 29, 2007
    #4
  5. Bergamot Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    >
    > As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
    > meaningless.


    You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
    errors. Logic errors are something else altogether. Common sense often
    seems to be in short supply where web stuff is concerned. :)

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Nov 29, 2007
    #5
  6. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Bergamot <> writing
    in news::

    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    >>
    >> As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
    >> meaningless.

    >
    > You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
    > errors. Logic errors are something else altogether. Common sense often
    > seems to be in short supply where web stuff is concerned. :)
    >


    I told my friend today that I use Opera's speech to test with. She was
    surprised, until I explained that you can look at something 50 times and
    not see the mistake, but when you _hear_ it, you notice it right away.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    Adrienne Boswell, Nov 30, 2007
    #6
  7. Andy Dingley Guest

    On 29 Nov, 16:27, Bergamot <> wrote:

    > You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
    > errors.


    No, that's _not_ what it means.
    Andy Dingley, Nov 30, 2007
    #7
  8. dorayme Guest

    In article
    <
    m>,
    Andy Dingley <> wrote:

    > On 29 Nov, 16:27, Bergamot <> wrote:
    >
    > > You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
    > > errors.

    >
    > No, that's _not_ what it means.


    Gee, Andy, you are becoming very brief in your old age... <g>

    In the usual validation services, there are errors and warnings.
    Each of these can be split into different types. It is, for sure,
    not a simple matter.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2007
    #8
  9. Andy Dingley Guest

    On 30 Nov, 09:36, dorayme <> wrote:

    > > > You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
    > > > errors.

    >
    > > No, that's _not_ what it means.

    >
    > Gee, Andy, you are becoming very brief in your old age... <g>


    That's why we have newsgroup archives. Validity (in SGML) isn't the
    same thing as syntactic well-formedness. Someone who has been around
    here long enough ought to have picked up on that distinction. Someone
    fresh to the group might not know, which is why a statement like that
    shouldn't be left lying around unchallenged.

    (and in other threads, Mika just isn't worth the extra typing)

    > In the usual validation services, there are errors and warnings.


    That's not the point. "validation" and "syntactic checking" are two
    different things, not two levels of the same thing. It's possible to
    use perfect syntax and still be invalid. Even "Furiously sleep ideas
    green colorless.", uses correct English syntax but is grammatically
    invalid. (The better known, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
    is grammatically valid, merely semantically meaningless).

    It's also arguable as to whether there are "warnings" from a
    validation either. DTD-based SGML validity is Boolean: you either are
    or you aren't. If there's a "warning" to be given, then that comes
    from some additional notation that can express a concept of "nominally
    valid, but inadvisable".
    Andy Dingley, Nov 30, 2007
    #9
  10. Ben C Guest

    On 2007-11-30, Andy Dingley <> wrote:
    [...]
    > That's not the point. "validation" and "syntactic checking" are two
    > different things, not two levels of the same thing. It's possible to
    > use perfect syntax and still be invalid. Even "Furiously sleep ideas
    > green colorless.", uses correct English syntax but is grammatically
    > invalid.


    No the syntax is pretty bad too. The accidence is about the only thing
    correct about that sentence (but English has minimal accidence anyway).

    Here is a version which also has incorrect accidence (as well as
    incorrect syntax): "Furiousless sleep ideas green colorly".

    "Accidence" is how you inflect words, "syntax" is how you put them
    together in a sentence. This analysis doesn't apply to all languages,
    but makes some sense wherever it's obvious what the difference between a
    word and a sentence is and where there is some inflection.

    "Grammar" is the union of the two, but may also include more general
    requirements like using words intelligibly (which you might call
    "semantics").

    The point is that the rules or norms for correct use of a natural
    language are not easy to write down. The word "grammar" is sometimes
    used just to distinguish using the language incorrectly (in the most
    general sense) from saying something that is false.
    Ben C, Nov 30, 2007
    #10
  11. mark4asp Guest

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:58:25 -0800 (PST), Travis Newbury
    <> wrote:

    >On Nov 29, 9:20 am, Helpful person <> wrote:
    >> > Only 71 validation errors...

    >> For fun I once ran sites offering web design services through the
    >> validators. Very few of them passed!

    >
    >I think there are a total of about 27 websites out there that will
    >pass, and the owners of them are probably regulars in this group...
    >
    >As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
    >meaningless.


    Valid html is meaningless? Do you think I should be putting <br> tags
    in the <head> of my code like this joker does. I suppose only if I
    include a transitional xhtml doctype header.

    I took this from his/her homepage:
    ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
    ><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
    ><head>
    ><link rel='shortcut icon' href='favicon.ico' /><br><link rel='icon' href='favicon.ico' /><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>Affordable Website Design</title>
    mark4asp, Nov 30, 2007
    #11
  12. dorayme Guest

    In article
    <
    m>,
    Andy Dingley <> wrote:

    > > In the usual validation services, there are errors and warnings.

    >
    > That's not the point. "validation" and "syntactic checking" are two
    > different things, not two levels of the same thing.


    You snipped the further distinction I was making. I did not go on
    to say much, just this:

    "Each of these can be split into different types. It is, for
    sure, not a simple matter".

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2007
    #12
  13. On Nov 30, 4:06 pm, mark4asp <> wrote:
    > >As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
    > >meaningless.

    > Valid html is meaningless?


    Yes, as a goal it is meaningless. As a tool it is invaluable for
    helping you build the page.

    good plan;
    "Validation helped me make my page correct"

    bad plan;
    "My page will validate no matter what"

    > Do you think I should be putting <br> tags
    > in the <head> of my code like this joker does. I suppose only if I
    > include a transitional xhtml doctype header.


    Yea, that's exactly what I said. (rolling eyes)
    Travis Newbury, Dec 2, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jayson
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    360
    jayson
    Aug 10, 2006
  2. Affordable Graphic Design

    , Apr 8, 2006, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    318
  3. sravan kumar
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    426
    sravan kumar
    Jun 21, 2011
  4. WOSG Services
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    157
    WOSG Services
    Jun 30, 2008
  5. Jack Jeffers

    Affordable web design

    Jack Jeffers, Aug 21, 2012, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    985
    dorayme
    Aug 23, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page