W3C Validator Icon and W3C Valdiator page

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Frank, May 2, 2004.

  1. Frank

    Frank Guest

    Hi

    I have added two validator icons from W3C - "Valid XHTML 1.1!" and "Valid
    CSS".
    I have copied them from W3C pages and altered them with respect to the
    image-files (at least that was the intention:)

    I have two problems with these icons:

    1. The images seems not to be retrieved by the browser. The "ALT" text is
    visible.
    In my directory on the ISP-site I find the files with the name:

    valid-css.png
    valid-xhtml11.png

    The tag conserning these icon are in this paragraph:

    <p>
    <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check/referer"><img
    src="valid-xhtml11.png" alt="Valid XHTML 1.1!" height="31" width="88" /></a>

    <a
    href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://home.broadpark
    ..no/~frankjj/">
    <img style="border:0;width:88px;height:31px"
    src="valid-css.png"
    alt="Valid CSS!"/>
    </a>
    </p>


    What is my problem?

    2. When I click the "Valid XHTML 1.1!" icon I arrive to the MarkUp
    Validation Service page
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=

    I have experienced that some other pages on the internet have same problem.
    Is this the correct behavior?
    To me it looks like an error. The yellow field starts saying "Sorry, this
    type of URI....."

    What is my problem?
    --

    I anyone feel like looking at the pages themselves they are found at:
    http://home.broadpark.no/~frankjj

    Thank you for any tip,
    Frank
     
    Frank, May 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Frank wrote:

    > 1. The images seems not to be retrieved by the browser. The "ALT" text is
    > visible.
    > In my directory on the ISP-site I find the files with the name:


    > What is my problem?


    Hard to say - try providing a URI.

    > 2. When I click the "Valid XHTML 1.1!" icon I arrive to the MarkUp
    > Validation Service page
    > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=


    Most likely you are not sending a referer header (which the validator
    depends upon when you visit /check/referer).

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
     
    David Dorward, May 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Dorward wrote:

    > Frank wrote:


    >> 1. The images seems not to be retrieved by the browser. The "ALT" text is
    >> visible.
    >> In my directory on the ISP-site I find the files with the name:


    >> What is my problem?


    > Hard to say - try providing a URI.


    "I anyone feel like looking at the pages themselves they are found at:
    http://home.broadpark.no/~frankjj"

    --
    Blinky Linux Registered User 4892F
    AOL Diary http://snipurl.com/aoldiary
    Nigerian Scam From Space http://snipurl.com/iss419
    New Windows - Don't Wait For Longhorn! http://snipurl.com/newwin
     
    Blinky the Shark, May 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Frank <> wrote:

    > I have added two validator icons from W3C - "Valid XHTML 1.1!" and
    > "Valid CSS".


    Why? And why XHTML 1.1?

    > I have two problems with these icons:
    >
    > 1. The images seems not to be retrieved by the browser. The "ALT"
    > text is visible.


    [...]

    > What is my problem?


    The images seems to be broken.

    > 2. When I click the "Valid XHTML 1.1!" icon I arrive to the MarkUp
    > Validation Service page
    > http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=


    [...]

    > The yellow field starts saying "Sorry, this
    > type of URI....."


    Are you sure you didn't try to validate a local file? The link works
    good for me (i.e., I end up at <http://validator.w3.org/check?
    uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.broadpark.no%2F~frankjj%2F>)

    --
    David Håsäther
     
    David Håsäther, May 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Blinky the Shark wrote:
    > "I anyone feel like looking at the pages themselves they are found at:
    > http://home.broadpark.no/~frankjj"


    libpng error: PNG file corrupted by ASCII conversion

    Looks like someone uploaded them via ftp in ASCII mode.

    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
     
    David Dorward, May 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Frank

    Frank Guest

    > Looks like someone uploaded them via ftp in ASCII mode.
    >

    Hi!
    Thanks - this was the problem - they works.

    Frank
     
    Frank, May 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Frank

    Frank Guest

    >
    > Why? And why XHTML 1.1?
    >

    Hi!

    Because I thought it was "A Good Thing" to do. Do you have some good
    arguments not to do it?
    Then please tell me. W3C says
    http://www.earth.com/bad-style/why-validate.html
    this goes for more important things than my home-page of course, but I also
    do it in order to learn from this.

    Thanks,
    Frank
     
    Frank, May 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Frank

    Frank Guest

    >
    > Are you sure you didn't try to validate a local file? The link works
    > good for me (i.e., I end up at <http://validator.w3.org/check?
    > uri=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.broadpark.no%2F~frankjj%2F>)


    Hi!

    I need to investigate more on this...
    Using the link you send me here then it works for me also, but from the page
    itself it didn't.
    I understand it as if it worked for you - I will ask someone I know to try
    it...
    Im sure that didn't upload a local file: The tags are as in the OP - I don't
    see that any local file could be my problem(?)

    Thank you for response,
    Frank
     
    Frank, May 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Frank

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Mon, 3 May 2004 07:45:24 +0200, "Frank" <> declared
    in alt.html:

    > Using the link you send me here then it works for me also, but from the page
    > itself it didn't.


    That's because you are trying to use the Referer: header to tell the
    validator the location of the page. Your browser or your ISP (or
    possibly something else) doesn't send the Referer: header, so the
    validator has no URI to validate.

    Better to link using the page address, e.g. the one that David gave you
    (please quote the name of who you are replying to, BTW).

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, May 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Frank wrote:
    >> Why? why XHTML 1.1?


    > Because I thought it was "A Good Thing" to do. Do you have some good
    > arguments not to do it?


    Validation is a good thing to do, I think that David was referring to the
    use of the icons and of XHTML 1.1.

    On icons:
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon

    On XHTML:
    The specification says you SHOULD NOT send XHTML 1.1 as text/html, if you
    send it using its good content type (application/xhtml+xml) then some
    browsers (such as lynx, links, w3m, oh and all known versions of Microsoft
    Internet Explorer) will prompt the user to download it rather then
    rendering it.

    As for XHTML 1.0, it can cause problems unless you understand some subtle
    but significant differences between it and HTML.

    http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml

    Then we have the empty element problem, described here:
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html
    and visible here:
    http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/gt.png
    (Emacs, the large window, is treating the document as HTML and correctly
    rendering a > character after each image[1]. Lynx (the small black window)
    is also treating it as HTML, but is incorrectly not rendering the >
    characters.)

    [1] They are both text browsers so we get alt text rather then images.


    --
    David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
     
    David Dorward, May 3, 2004
    #10
    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. Miro Durcik

    app.rc resource's icon to .net Icon

    Miro Durcik, Oct 9, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,439
    Miro Durcik
    Oct 9, 2004
  2. Alfonso Alvarez
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    711
    Alfonso Alvarez
    May 13, 2004
  3. xeno

    W3C Validator

    xeno, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    990
    Hywel Jenkins
    Jun 28, 2003
  4. Dan Polansky
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    871
    Larry Barowski
    Feb 12, 2007
  5. Bodi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    321
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
    Nov 18, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page