Re: W3C Validator Errors

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. wayne wrote:

    > The W3C validator reports an error in the html:
    > Line 17, Column 41: Attribute "language" exists, but can not be used
    > for this element.


    It's a poorly formulated error message. Unfortunately, they are making the
    reports looser in their misguided attempt at being more user-friendly - and
    they confuse users even more than before.

    It is completely irrelevant that attribute "language" exists (according to
    the DTD) for some element, when it does not exist (i.e. is not allowed) for
    the element being investigated.

    But I think you have dealt with this issue:

    > <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
    > Even though the "view source" clearly shows "language="javascript"" is
    > not in the html.


    Which "view source"? When I visit the page http://glenmeadows.us on a normal
    browser and do View source, I surely see
    <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
    on line 17.

    > I have changed the doctype dtd to several different types but always
    > end up with the same results.


    Why? Validation is about being exact with your syntax, not about throwing
    random documents at a Molok-like demi-god called a Validator in order to be
    lucky enough to please it and get a Sign of Approval (even though some W3C
    policies may seem to encourage the latter view).

    Do you really want to use XHTML 1.0 Strict? Why? Well, if you do, then deal
    with the consequences. You have a lot to do then, and it's mostly nothing
    productive. What's the point of getting rid of presentational attributes
    when your source is full of presentational orientation? Things like that
    <td class="white"><span class="smalltext">22</span></td>
    are really just presentational markup, with <font> and everything, in
    disguise.

    If you have made the mistake of using XHTML in the first place, then you
    could help yourself by using Transitional doctype - at least as the first
    step, fixing real syntax errors if any, before proceeding to (futile?)
    cleanup from Transitional to Strict.

    > Other errors are also no in the html, almost like the validator is
    > looking at a different page.
    >
    > The site is glenmeadows.us


    Well, you gave a computer's Internet name (domain name), not a URL.

    But are you sure _you_ are looking at http://gleanmeadows.us as a web page
    and not at some file in some authoring program - a file from which the page
    is constructed, possibly in a fairly complicated way?

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Mar 29, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jukka K. Korpela

    asdf Guest

    "wayne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >> wayne wrote:
    >>
    >>> The W3C validator reports an error in the html:
    >>> Line 17, Column 41: Attribute "language" exists, but can not be used
    >>> for this element.

    >>
    >> It's a poorly formulated error message. Unfortunately, they are making
    >> the reports looser in their misguided attempt at being more
    >> user-friendly - and they confuse users even more than before.
    >>
    >> It is completely irrelevant that attribute "language" exists (according
    >> to the DTD) for some element, when it does not exist (i.e. is not
    >> allowed) for the element being investigated.
    >>
    >> But I think you have dealt with this issue:
    >>

    > Thank you for the response. Perhaps the error message is of little value
    > here.
    >>> <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
    >>> Even though the "view source" clearly shows "language="javascript"" is
    >>> not in the html.

    >>
    >> Which "view source"? When I visit the page http://glenmeadows.us on a
    >> normal browser and do View source, I surely see
    >> <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
    >> on line 17.
    >>

    > As I've stated in response to the Richard and Andy, when I do a view
    > source, the text at line 17 is not the same as what you see and I am
    > looking in my browser, not the text you are seeing. The text in the error
    > message does not show up at all in my browser, but when I click on show
    > source in the W3C settings and look at that source, it is indeed there.
    > There is cookie information there as well, which I don't see in my
    > browser.
    >
    >>> I have changed the doctype dtd to several different types but always
    >>> end up with the same results.

    >>
    >> Why? Validation is about being exact with your syntax, not about throwing
    >> random documents at a Molok-like demi-god called a Validator in order to
    >> be lucky enough to please it and get a Sign of Approval (even though some
    >> W3C policies may seem to encourage the latter view).
    >>

    > The site is a cms driven site and the syntax is not easy to change.


    That's weird. I thought a CMS was supposed to make this template-y stuff
    *easier* rather than *harder* :))

    > There are hundreds of files to review and modify. I have been working on
    > the site for a couple of years trying to remove the tables, but it is a
    > daunting task.
    >

    [snip]
     
    asdf, Mar 29, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jukka K. Korpela

    rf Guest

    wayne wrote:
    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >> wayne wrote:
    >>
    >>> The W3C validator reports an error in the html:
    >>> Line 17, Column 41: Attribute "language" exists, but can not be used
    >>> for this element.

    >>
    >> It's a poorly formulated error message. Unfortunately, they are
    >> making the reports looser in their misguided attempt at being more
    >> user-friendly - and they confuse users even more than before.
    >>
    >> It is completely irrelevant that attribute "language" exists
    >> (according to the DTD) for some element, when it does not exist
    >> (i.e. is not allowed) for the element being investigated.
    >>
    >> But I think you have dealt with this issue:
    >>

    > Thank you for the response. Perhaps the error message is of little
    > value here.
    >>> <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
    >>> Even though the "view source" clearly shows "language="javascript""
    >>> is not in the html.

    >>
    >> Which "view source"? When I visit the page http://glenmeadows.us on a
    >> normal browser and do View source, I surely see
    >> <script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript">
    >> on line 17.
    >>

    > As I've stated in response to the Richard and Andy, when I do a view
    > source, the text at line 17 is not the same as what you see and I am
    > looking in my browser, not the text you are seeing. The text in the
    > error message does not show up at all in my browser, but when I click
    > on show source in the W3C settings and look at that source, it is
    > indeed there. There is cookie information there as well, which I
    > don't see in my browser.


    When I view source with FF and Chrome the script is not there. When I view
    source with IE, Opera, Safari the script *is* there. Somebody methinks is
    indulging in some server side browser sniffing.



    >>> I have changed the doctype dtd to several different types but always
    >>> end up with the same results.

    >>
    >> Why? Validation is about being exact with your syntax, not about
    >> throwing random documents at a Molok-like demi-god called a
    >> Validator in order to be lucky enough to please it and get a Sign of
    >> Approval (even though some W3C policies may seem to encourage the
    >> latter view).

    > The site is a cms driven site and the syntax is not easy to change.
    > There are hundreds of files to review and modify. I have been working
    > on the site for a couple of years trying to remove the tables, but it
    > is a daunting task.
    >
    >> Do you really want to use XHTML 1.0 Strict? Why? Well, if you do,
    >> then deal with the consequences. You have a lot to do then, and it's
    >> mostly nothing productive. What's the point of getting rid of
    >> presentational attributes when your source is full of presentational
    >> orientation? Things like that
    >> <td class="white"><span class="smalltext">22</span></td>
    >> are really just presentational markup, with <font> and everything, in
    >> disguise.

    >
    >>
    >> If you have made the mistake of using XHTML in the first place, then
    >> you could help yourself by using Transitional doctype - at least as
    >> the first step, fixing real syntax errors if any, before proceeding
    >> to (futile?) cleanup from Transitional to Strict.
    >>

    > Perhaps I should cut my losses and stop trying to get rid of the
    > errors. The php generated code does need a lot more work to get to
    > 2009 standards.
    >>> Other errors are also no in the html, almost like the validator is
    >>> looking at a different page.
    >>>
    >>> The site is glenmeadows.us

    >>
    >> Well, you gave a computer's Internet name (domain name), not a URL.
    >>

    > Yes, I got lazy there as my browser inserts http:// automatically
    > when I type a site into the address bar. I forget sometimes that I
    > should include it when giving the url.
    >
    > I edit the site directly on the server using Quanta Plus and then view
    > in Firefox through my isp. This works for me as I am sure my browser
    > is seeing what others will see.
    >
    >> But are you sure _you_ are looking at http://gleanmeadows.us as a web
    >> page and not at some file in some authoring program - a file from
    >> which the page is constructed, possibly in a fairly complicated way?
    >>

    > The template for the page seems pretty straight forward, but other
    > files are called from php and insert lines into the html. I would
    > concede this is done in a complicated way as I cannot find the file that
    > contains
    > "language=javascript" in the directories.
    >
    > Thanks for taking the time to look at the site and for your
    > advice/comments.
     
    rf, Mar 30, 2009
    #3
    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. Alfonso Alvarez
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    710
    Alfonso Alvarez
    May 13, 2004
  2. xeno

    W3C Validator

    xeno, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    989
    Hywel Jenkins
    Jun 28, 2003
  3. Frank
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,641
    David Dorward
    May 3, 2004
  4. richard

    Re: W3C Validator Errors

    richard, Mar 29, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    334
    richard
    Mar 29, 2009
  5. Andy Dingley

    Re: W3C Validator Errors

    Andy Dingley, Mar 29, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    381
    Neredbojias
    Mar 30, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page