|
Posted by Icarus - iD_Ten_T helper on September 4, 2007, 6:27 am
Please log in for more thread options
On 4 Sep, 11:14, "Andr=E9 Gillibert"
> BogiWogi wrote:
> > new exciting tools added for webmaster related, others are being
> > developcheck it outhttp://services.imasty.com/
>
> David E. Ross answered:
>
> > 193 XHMTL errors on cited Web page. If they can't get it correct for
> > themselves, why should we trust them to get it correct for their
> > customers.
>
> BogiWogi replied, without quoting, to David E. Ross:
>
> > Hello Sir,
> > Thanks for your comments about our services.
> > For your acknowledge if your are validating our website using; w3c
> > html validator; the let you know they are mistaken in retrieving the
> > data from our website, because they are testing use standard
> > implementations html formats for validation, of HTML source;
>
> (You should validate your english ;) )
>
> The W3C validation tools are generic SGML or XML validators.
> The only additionnal constraint they impose, is about the scheme of the
> document type declaration, because they try to respect HTML 4.01/7.2,
> making the barrier between conformance and validation blur.
>
> Anyway, standard XML validators would show that your page is ill-formed
> XML!
>
> Excerpt fromhttp://services.imasty.com/(September 4 2007):
>
> > <META NAME=3D"GOOGLEBOT" CONTENT=3D"INDEX,FOLLOW">
> > <META NAME=3D"MSNBOT" CONTENT=3D"INDEX,FOLLOW">
>
> This code cannot be valid according to the document type declaration,
> because META is spelled in upper case letters, and the document type
> declaration doesn't contain any declaration for this element. It declares
> meta, but not META.
>
> The document type declaration was:
>
> > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
>
> Note that there's no document type declaration subset.
>
> Secondly, this code is ill-formed because the META tag is not closed. An
> XML parser would complain that </head> doesn't match the META open tag.
>
> Another excerpt:
>
> > <body bgcolor=3D"#EAF2FE">
> > </body>
> > <table border=3D"0" width=3D"100%" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0"
> > height=3D"93">
>
> A table after the body!
> This is invalid. Some user agents may not display the table at all.
>
> > and due to hacking, attempts, site grabbing and prevent from code stolen
> > attempts make our site secure tags and all the tags is well formated
> > but not w3c standardized;
>
> It's ill-formed, hence not "well formated".
> The code stealing issues are irrelevant.
> Bad code is as easy to steal than good code.
>
> Similarly, violating copyrights of books written in ill-formed english
> isn't harder than for books written in good english.
> The only difference is that people prefer to steal good code and good
> books.
> On the other hand, you'll get fewer customers for your books if you write
> them in bad english.
>
> > even not our website, you can check HTML W3C
> > validation ofhttp://groups.google.com/orhttp://microsoft.com/or
> >http://yahoo.com;
>
> The fact that Web giants have no code quality standards and serve awful
> code, is not an excuse.
> The argument: "I did something bad, but others did it too", is childish.
>
> > W3C validator or may others HTML validators will
> > show you error also from these because; Yahoo!, Google, MSN also using
> > secure HTML tags formats
>
> I don't see "secure HTML tags formats".
> I just see invalid and ill-formed code.
> Tag soup is not secure in any way.
> I hope your company doesn't apply the same security principles -
> Obfuscating things so that "nobody can read" - for critical data.
>
> Maybe there's a publicly accessible password file where passwords are
> stored in ROT13!
>
> > , but are oppositely using their products even
> > services, because problem not in services problem in they way of
> > development method
>
> Problems are in your english. ;)
>
> > , and if aren't agree with us, please check the
> > error from validator and then open the source code of the same page
> > where you seem have seen error in validator and check is there really
> > have mistakes that they are showing;
>
> That's what I did. And I found errors.
>
> > nor i think you haven't find
> > that, obviously not,
>
> If this sentence means "I don't think you haven't found errors", then,
> you're right, I found errors.
>
> --
thanks for that. these engrish speaking, advertising sons of bitches
need to be stopped. this is a newsgroup fro discussion, not for
advertisment
| 
XML Sitemap