Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    3,386
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Validating HTML files

    What do folkes use for validating HTML files offline?

    Is there a better alternative than downloading the source for the W3C validator and compiling?

  2. #2
    Silver Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,862
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Validating HTML files

    Most of the leading commercial web editors provide validation: Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc.

  3. #3
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    3,386
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Validating HTML files

    I don't recall FP's capabilities.
    I'll have to boot to another OS to use FP 2002, don't have FP 2003.

  4. #4
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    251
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Re: Validating HTML files

    I highly recommend HTML Tidy, which can be found at http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/
    A downloadable binary for Windows is available at http://tidy.sourceforge.net/#binaries
    It's small, fast, and accurate. It has a nice 'clean' function for removing Word's markup codes too.
    Peter

  5. #5
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    3,386
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Validating HTML files

    I've been using HTML Tidy for years.
    Unfortunately, in the past few daze, I discovered how inadequate it was.

    More than half the HTML files at my web site had problems that HTML Tidy had not detected.

    To be fair, there has been no development work on Raggett's version for many years.
    There are successor versions, but I've not tried ant of those because, last I checked, the group workin gon them was just developing add-ins, not a stand-alone .exe.

  6. #6
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    3,386
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Validating HTML files

    I just checked the tidy web site, looks like more has been added since I last checked.

    I'll take a look again, perhaps tomorrow.

  7. #7
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    3,386
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Validating HTML files

    I just tried TidyUI.

    Interestingly, it caught one problem that was not detected by the online validators at W3C and WDG.

    I knew about the problem, but had forgotton to make a change. I had two identically named anchors.

    I'll try it tomorrow with some files I had run thru the online validators at W3C and WDG.
    Let's see if TidyUI complains about the same things.

    I also just tried HTMLTrim.
    Don't like what I've seen so far, need more documentation.

  8. #8
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    233
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Validating HTML files

    I am a fan of CSE HTML Validator Pro. It finds stuff that others don't. Checks HTML, XHTML, CSS, links, spelling, etc. http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

  9. #9
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    3,386
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Validating HTML files

    Thanx, I'm downloading Lite version now.

  10. #10
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    3,386
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Validating HTML files

    Downloaded Lite version, which is free.

    Initial reaction is that it dpes indeed warn about things not flagged by other validators.
    However Lite version does not list all warnings, in some cases, you are told that n warnings were found that would have been reported by the standard or pro versions.

    I caaled cSE and they informed me that the Pro trial version could be used to check full functionality, so I am downloading as we speak.
    FYI, CSE ran the software on my file and informed of the cause of the two warnings.

    1. I do not include the path to the DTD in the DOCTYPE tag.
    2. I had inadvertently left an <a> tag with no text, due to my fat fingers not fully deleting a line.

    Nether would be harmful, but it is interesting that other validators did not warn.

    P.S. Whilst on the phone, I was offerred an opportunity to purchase the standard version for $20 less than the list price, so if anyone decides to get this critter, you may be able to call and get a better price than list.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •