W3C Markup Validator Upgraded 12
comforteagle writes "The W3C has upgraded their markup validation service to include easier navigation, official bug tracking support, 'verbose' error messages, fixed output bugs, and improved documentation. Aside from simply using the W3C's site you can download your own version. Mmmm "banana flavor"."
From the release notes... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:From the release notes... (Score:2)
Re:From the release notes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, we already know that /. is not up-to-date for good html, but meh.
Re:From the release notes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:From the release notes... (Score:4, Informative)
I noticed that Blogger [blogger.com] has done a complete redesign [blogger.com] using standards (backed by many of the Big Names [webstandards.org] in the buzzing site-design industry, including my favourite [mezzoblue.com])
I remember A List Apart [alistapart.com] did an 'Extreme Makeover' [alistapart.com] on our beloved frontpage, wondering wether we'll ever get to see it happen! (must be a hell-uv-a job...)
CSS3 support (Score:3, Interesting)
Would be nice if they had CSS3 (instead of CSS2) support for validating turned on by default. A bit quirky, but it is at least better then before. Now it generates warnings instead of errors for valid CSS3 that it doesn't implement.
I wondered when /. was going to mention this. It's been around for at least few days now.
Re:CSS3 support (Score:1)
Hmm, this is odd. I can turn warnings and medium to all and profile to CSS3 and my page validates on their server. I see their method uses the validator?uri=SOMEURL method to validate. Switching to the check/referer?warning=2&profile=css3&usermedium=al l method to validate with everything turned on results in the validator producing an error CSS for [href^="http://"].
Re:CSS3 support (Score:3, Informative)
I've been on the list for a short while now, and the people there are very helpful and willing to take on suggestions. I'm not a html guru, but I was able to contribute in my own small way to the new validator, by pointing out some spelling/layout mistakes in the beta version.
One question: (Score:2)
Why can't Slashdot [w3.org] be validated??
Re:One question: (Score:1)
Did you try to click your own link? It seems something changed in the /. web server configuration, as it is now allowed to validate the site directly withing Validator. Or maybe the IP address of validator changed and they were filtering it?