Hi
1 — I am aware from exchanges back in December between Davis Owen, Helveticus and Max that WebYep does not get validated by WC3. Has there been any progress on this front and does it matter anyway?
On a site I have just uploaded the Webyep pages are failed by WC3 (others were too initially until I removed the action 'Fit Page to Screen). It can be seen at http://www.cornelie-de-jong.com/ should anyone have the time to look and maybe spot the problem - or tell me not to worry. WC3 tells me of course what the problems are but I guess there is no way to put it straight in Freeway?
2 — The site makes use of the host and URL of the client’s former site. She has now also bought http://www.corneliedejong.nl and I have asked the hosting company to direct the site to this address too. This works but the new URL and all its pages do not validate. Should I be worried? There is almost no code to validate when looking at the source and no doc type.
Also it is not possible to use Webyep from this address - only the original one. Normal? Or have I overlooked something.?
I can’t remember how far I got with this. I believe the latest
version of WebYep sorts an issue with the login padlock and validation
I might be wrong here.
Perhaps Max could chip in.
David
On 25 Jun 2009, at 14:25, richard lowther wrote:
1 — I am aware from exchanges back in December between Davis Owen,
Helveticus and Max that WebYep does not get validated by WC3. Has
there been any progress on this front and does it matter anyway?
Hi Richard,
Try and do the redirection at the domain level with a DNS entry.
Currently the old domain site is getting inserted into a full window
frameset which works but doesn’t do much for your web rankings and
prevents users from bookmarking individual pages. If you redirect both
domains to the same hosting account then additionally you’ll only need
one site to maintain rather than the existing two.
Regards,
Tim.
On 25 Jun 2009, at 06:25, richard lowther wrote:
2 — The site makes use of the host and URL of the client’s former
site. She has now also bought http://www.corneliedejong.nl and I
have asked the hosting company to direct the site to this address
too. This works but the new URL and all its pages do not validate.
Should I be worried? There is almost no code to validate when
looking at the source and no doc type.
Also it is not possible to use Webyep from this address - only the
original one. Normal? Or have I overlooked something.?
Thanks for the replies David. I have changed the webyep page to XHTML but still can’t get it past the WC3 validator - only 3 errors but nevertheless… Once I have opened the lock and then asked WC3 again to look at that page the errors jump up to 44 + 3 warnings.
Walt responded to my question about HTML or XHTML on the 24 June and emphasised that that whatever we used it should be valid. I await to see if any Webyeppery experts know anything about this and again ask - how concerned should I be?
I am looking into redirecting the names Tim and thanks for the advice. I will be back to let you know.
What I said was that if you weren’t using hand coding – and WY is a
form of that – you should be fine. Another thing that you have to
stick to is consistency. HTML and XHTML enforce different rules about
punctuation, quotation, and how to deal with single-ended tags. You
can’t mix and match these, and if WY is using XHTML, you have to do
the same in your “carrier” page.
Walter
On Jun 26, 2009, at 5:42 AM, richard lowther wrote:
Walt responded to my question about HTML or XHTML on the 24 June and
emphasised that that whatever we used it should be valid. I await
to see if any Webyeppery experts know anything about this and again
ask - how concerned should I be?
Since I last replied I swung by the webyep forum- nothing new there since last year but suggestions that Tinymce can foul up the code. So out that went but no gain. Walt above warned against mix and match so I had a look at the code of Webyep - when unlocked and in edit mode it uses HTML. So I took it back to HTML. This gave the regular page 5 errors and 15 warnings. Open up to edit and the errors jump to 44. Putting it back to XHML I get three errors on the regular page and a few more when unlocked. !! David - I will email you the username and password if this issue is of interest and you would like to dig deeper.
But but … if you put just about any site name into http://www.validateur.ca/ it invariably comes up with pages that don’t validate - and that includes http://www.w3.org/ (granted only 19 out of 198) and many of this forum’s contributors who I will not name and shame lest I be accused of snooping.
So if you pros are happy to tolerate page errors than I guess I should stop being so fussy too.?
Hi richard
I too wouldn’t worry about validation on an unlocked page
as far as when its locked… well there were a few webyep actions that wouldn’t validate and I do know on some of those, OBD were working at trying to get them to validate, though to be honest I had completely forgotten about it.
So for the sake of a few validation errors you may feel its not worth it
If you want to see a lot of errors, adobe.com on the home page has 342 errors and apple.com has 74 so if you have just 4 then unless they are ship stoppers you may its near enough