DaveMidgley wrote:Also, I thought everyone was encouraged to use XTML these days.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
DaveMidgley wrote:Now, my Dad has been advised that errors in a web site, even if the site renders fine, may cause the rating on search engines to drop (he runs a charity and would like to keep his rating up if he can), but when he ran it through Validator lots of errors were generated as described.
It seems to me he has three options:
1) leave it alone, it works so don't worry about it
2) fix all the errors (as I say they are all trivial things like <br> instead of <br/> which don't bother any browser I know of, but there are a lot of them)
3) change the specifications to HTML - the problem with this is that if there is genuine XTML in there somewhere this could actually break the site. Presumably Validator or Validator Lite could then be used to find invalidated HTML, but I can't help thinking that if the original author has gone to the trouble of overriding Kompozer's default specs he must have had a good reason (unfortunately he is no longer in the loop).
is it mostly HTML or XHTML?
DaveMidgley wrote:is it mostly HTML or XHTML?
I'm not sure. I'm not familiar enough with the difference between HTML and XHTML - is it just a question of enforcing the rules more rigorously in XHTML, or are there actually XHTML tags/elements that are not part of HTML and which wouldn't render in an HTML page, ie. if I changed the document definitions back to HTML?
DaveMidgley wrote:Many thanks for all the good advice.
The site in question is http://www.ostrust.co.uk
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest