Post your requests and suggestions for v7.0 to this forum

[Albert Wiersch]

I've started development on v7.0 and have a list of previous requests. I'm still open to further requests and suggestions for the upcoming version. Please post them to this forum if there's anything new you'd like to request for v7.0. Also, please feel free to restate a previous request.

[MikeGale]

In the past I have modified configuration files.

I've stopped doing this, as I've lost work when upgrading. (The modifications are a difference against the original not an alternative.)

I'd like some additional information to help with this. The information would appear in the online help and on download pages. (I envisage something without program modification.) It would include:

1) Notes about how the config data is structured.
2) Notes on broad changes to config files, like new categories.
3) Notes about file naming and backup applied by the install (so that I don't lose anything and know that in advance).
4) Notes on format and compatability with diff tools (I use Beyond Compare 2.)

(The first time I entered this item I lost it after I looked at preview and hit backspace . The format of markup was not obvious to me! )

[Albert Wiersch]

Hello,

There is already some information about the configuration files. There are actually several configuration files so I'm not sure which ones you are speaking of. I assume you are talking about the configuration edited with Options->Configuration Editor (like htmlval65.cfg).

There is some information about this in the documentation and install text already. I believe it does say that you should back up your configuration file. Also, when modifying htmlval65.cfg or other "cfg" file, you should save it as a different name so that it won't be replaced when you upgrade.

Small changes made to the configuration between versions are typically not specifically documented, however, you might find some changes mentioned in the history page:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/be ... ryv70.html

I will make a note about this to make sure the documentation includes information about the format of the file. Currently, the cfg file is a binary format and is not meant to be edited outside of the Configuration Editor. Here is a link to the current BETA documentation for the configuration editor (I'll revise it before v7.0):
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/v7 ... ation.html

You should be able to use previous configuration files from previous versions with the new version, but you won't benfit from the improvements made in the newest configuration file if you use an older one.

Sorry about losing your post. I'm not sure why that happened. It sounds like it could be a browser issue. Typically browsers should save the form data when you go back, unless perhaps it is a secure page and it would pose a security problem. But even if not secure, I've had that happen to me and know that it is very frustrating.

[Albert Wiersch]

In the past I have modified configuration files.

I've stopped doing this, as I've lost work when upgrading. (The modifications are a difference against the original not an alternative.)

I'd like some additional information to help with this. The information would appear in the online help and on download pages. (I envisage something without program modification.) It would include:

1) Notes about how the config data is structured.
2) Notes on broad changes to config files, like new categories.
3) Notes about file naming and backup applied by the install (so that I don't lose anything and know that in advance).
4) Notes on format and compatability with diff tools (I use Beyond Compare 2.)

Hi Mike,

If you would, can you take a look at these links:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/v7 ... ation.html
and
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/htmlval/v7 ... ditor.html

I've added more information to those pages (based on your suggestions). Please let me know if there is anything else that you think should be added to those documentation pages.

[Bob]

...but I'll say it one more time. HTML Tidy!

You could add it in 2 phases. One as optional reporting module , just to point out some things that CSE, W3C and WDG validators do not yet see.

Allowing it to actually fix problems it finds by itself could always be added in later on down the line. The auto-fix capability (especially conversion to XHTML) could be the "Holy Grail" I would think.

It also looks like the program's source code was just updated yesterday!

http://tidy.sourceforge.net/

Could the timing finally be right now?

[oldgrunt]

The "table" tag is contained in a "center" tag. Different browsers may render this very differently. For example, Internet Explorer 6.0 may center the table cell content (depending on the DOCTYPE) while Internet Explorer 5.5 does not. However, both will center the table itself. If you want to center the table, then align="center" may be used in the "table" tag.

This check seems to have been lost.

What will the update price be?

Keep up the good work.

Ken

[Albert Wiersch]

The "table" tag is contained in a "center" tag. Different browsers may render this very differently. For example, Internet Explorer 6.0 may center the table cell content (depending on the DOCTYPE) while Internet Explorer 5.5 does not. However, both will center the table itself. If you want to center the table, then align="center" may be used in the "table" tag. This check seems to have been lost.

Hi Ken,

v7.00 BETA 2 is generating that message in the General Compatibility category which is in the Grouped Messages tab. Are you sure that that message is not being displayed there? Make sure you are doing a "Normal" validation using Tools->Validate->Normal.

What will the update price be?

Upgrades to v7.0 will be $29 for the standard edition and $39 for the professional edition. Some users will qualify for free upgrades per our upgrade policy of 60 days for the standard edition and one year for the professional edition.

[Guest]

I wonder if you have considered adding a validation check for RSS feeds. It'll be handy to have that for my feeds, which I manually create.

[Albert Wiersch]

I wonder if you have considered adding a validation check for RSS feeds. It'll be handy to have that for my feeds, which I manually create.

I've thought about it, but I think you're the only person who's ever asked. I think most people use tools to create their feeds and wouldn't make use of an RSS checker. But it's always a possibility for a future enhancement.

[George]

Hi there,

I am still a little concerned about the 7 Beta that I am testing. I actually can't use it in many cases anymore because it reports error messages where there are none, or where it shoudn't be called an error message. Once you've got a long page CSE will stop validating due to too many errors.

Most annoyingly that is the "number of cells" error. For example the following code:

Code: Select all

<table CLASS="header">
    <tr>
        <td CLASS="header-left"><img SRC="img/logo.gif" WIDTH="264" HEIGHT="55" ALT=""></td>
        <td CLASS="header-right">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td CLASS="header-subtitle" COLSPAN="2">Version 2.5 Beta Test Installation</td>
    </tr>
</table>

will cause an error:
This table doesn't appear to have the same number of cells in each of its 2 rows. Number of cells in each row, starting with the first row: 2, 1. Note that for the purposes of this message, a table cell with a "colspan" or "rowspan" value greater than 1 is considered to be multiple cells.

First of all: It is NOT an error. The code is correct. Why is this an error message and not a warning? "...doesn't appear..." doesn't appear to be definite enough to call it an error.

Also I don't understand the third sentence talking about colspan and rowspan. If a colspan TD tag is considered to be multiple cells why does it say "1" in the second sentence.

I'd be really glad if you could take out this error message or change it into a warning. It messes up many of my validations because on some pages I am working with hundreds of colspans.

Even better would be an option to switch off each error and warning message. Thus, I can decide what CSE should look for in my code and what it should leave alone.

Best regards,
George

Note: I have opened a similar thread a few weeks back here one level higher with no reaction whatsoever. So I am trying my luck in here again because I consider this an important issue.

[Albert Wiersch]

I'd be really glad if you could take out this error message or change it into a warning. It messes up many of my validations because on some pages I am working with hundreds of colspans.

Even better would be an option to switch off each error and warning message. Thus, I can decide what CSE should look for in my code and what it should leave alone.

Hi George,

Thank you. That is indeed a bug in the BETA. CSE is not recognizing the "COLSPAN" attribute. If you change the attribute to lowercase, then it will recognize it and won't generate that error. I will fix this in the next BETA release.

You can easily disable messages by right-clicking on them in CSE's editor. To disable, right-click on the message and choose Options for this Message->Disable Message. Using this same feature, you can change errors to warnings if you feel that a warning would be better for the message.

I do not remember seeing your other post. I apologize if I missed it.

[DigitsRMyLife]

I just updated to v7.0 (it's working fine) but I would like to make a request to make link checking a bit safer. I've added the <base href="o:\dev\....\html"> to my files before checking links so that I get all the green boxes but then I have to remember to remove it. If there was a way to apply the base to links that start with a relative path:
e.g. "/images/..." or "/scripts/..."
instead of the absolute url like "http://www...../"
that would make my life easier!
Thanks for a great product and improving the html code I produce!

[Albert Wiersch]

I just updated to v7.0 (it's working fine) but I would like to make a request to make link checking a bit safer. I've added the <base href="o:\dev\....\html"> to my files before checking links so that I get all the green boxes but then I have to remember to remove it. If there was a way to apply the base to links that start with a relative path:
e.g. "/images/..." or "/scripts/..."
instead of the absolute url like "http://www...../"
that would make my life easier!

Thank you. I understand the problem and this is something I've thought about but haven't yet had a chance to do. I may be able to get this into the next major version, but it won't make it in v7.0x.