I realize this is way late, but in Firefox, if you view source through the HTML Tidy extension instead of through the context menu, you will see that it is validating the IE Tab page it uses to load IE, not the page itself.
csi235
@csi235
Best posts made by csi235
Latest posts made by csi235
-
RE: Pervasive Recursive Frames
-
RE: Watch out for "possible" errors
I don't know if Java has this in some way (I use C#), but C# has the concept of nullable types. For example, the type int? can be set to null unlike the normal int type. If Java has a similar mechanism, what if you had a method like this:
int? tryParseInt(string s)
where Java would return null if s couldn't be parsed.
-
RE: Pervasive Recursive Frames
The errors I have found:
- <html> tag without xmlns, lang, or xml:lang (3 errors)
- <frameset> tag only has rows and cols attributes in the standard, and is in uppercase, so six errors per tag times six tags (39 errors)
- <frame> tags are in uppercase, have one unencoded ampersand each in the src (which is the only lowercase attribute, as well), have minimized attributes which are illegal in XHTML, and are not closed. Note that I considered each attribute with an uppercase value as two errors and the NORESIZE as two errors since it is both uppercase and minimized. 13 errors per tag times 13 tags (208 errors).
- One of the <frame>s has two unencoded ampersands, so add one more error (209 errors)
209 errors total (so my original count was a little off).
This is the third time in my entire life that HTML source code has made me weep. One was the old robotics website (FrontPage and flash, 'nuff said). The other was my mother's Myspace page. I have now confirmed in my mind that myspace must die...
Note to self: find archived copy of website for a sidebar wtf.
-
RE: Pervasive Recursive Frames
I counted 239 errors (240 if you include the meta tag in the comment). I'll recount later after I get back from school, because I think I counted twice on some tags.
Also the Content-Type meta tag being in comments... I wonder if this really was UTF-8. And if you're going to serve as text/html, what exactly is the point of claiming to use XHTML (I say claiming to use because this monstrosity couldn't even come close to looking like XHTML, not even if you squinted and turned your head a little).
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to clean up the blood from my eyes that dripped onto the floor while counting the errors (yes, I did it without the validator).