Should i validate? and can you help?

well 3 down, 3 to go

 

i have officially decided that i cannot fix the last 2 problems (i think they relate) so i officially give up.

if anyone finds it they can have a voucher for me shop - ie they can help me make it work

mike

 

basically inside that <td> </td> you have a separate table like this:

your missing the bit in red

 

i wish it were that easy!

the site is constructed from 2000+ files and is OScommerce so i have no idea where the missing table tag actually should be

thanks for thr input though

 

which ever file has "<!-- information_eof //-->" in it, needs a </table> after it

 

hmm double edged sword, - i found 3 files with that in. i have fixed it but it means that the page doesnt display properly

 

did you change it in all of them?
try changng it in one at a time

 

right well, here is the situation.

if i add the </table> after the information_eof then it works however it then doesnt display right, but if i remove the rss-feeder (that is included and ends there) and add a </table> just before the closing html tags it also works but not both at once. and i dont really want to get rid of the rss news feed!!


no no - that would be too easy

 

sorry mate, no idea!

Having used OSCommerce for a bout 5 minutes, maybe im not the best person for this.

Maybe someone with more experience can act on my comments?

 

I had some table issues in login.php after installing Purchase Without Account.

I ended up printing 15 pages of html output, took 5 different coloured marker/hilighters and coded and noted all tables, tr's and td'. After 3.5 hours I found the missing </td>.

I suggest you do the same if you;re fanatical about this validation thing.

 

Well done on getting your site validated Billy Brag. Many businesses underestimate the value of being properly validated.

Did you know that around 8 million people are registered disabled in the UK and only 11% of all websites are properly validated?

Even some of my own sites aren't properly validated but I'm saving it for a rainy day lol.

With 89% of sites not complying with the proper validation rules there is a huge market out there for creating sites that disabled users can use. Many interfaces for the disabled rely on websites being properly validated.

My statistics are taken from 2004 so they may have changed slightly since then.

 

Here are some quick fixes

• Grab version MS3 from CVS - it is XHTML compliant
• Or Apply STS contribution to templatize and then fix only the infoBoxes

By the way:
1.] I have not seen my SERP's affected one bit by bad HTML.
Probably because spiders remove html tags before ranking.
2.] Most Web Browsers handle bad html fairly well so don't worry.

 

I disagree. Many browsers still have many significant bugs and don't even handle valid HTML well in many cases. How do you know that the next version of IE, FireFox, Safari, etc will still handle your bad code well?

If your code doesn't validate then you can spend an incredible amount of time making sure your website looks the way it is supposed to across several operating systems (old and new), browser versions, and screen resolutions.

Creating valid HTML doesn't negate all of that testing, but it does reduce it significantly and yield more consistent across OS/browser/resuolution combinations. It also helps "future-proof" your site to help ensure it will still render well in future browsers.

 

I don't believe this is necessarily true. It is commonly believed that search engines rank text in h1, strong, and bold tags (among others) as being more important than other words on your page. If any of those tags are incorrectly nested you could be confusing the search engine as to what is important or not.