Please do not wonder if these are actually frequently asked.
The W3C service simply validates HTML in terms of DTD. However there are various restrictions which
DTD is not able to express in HTML specifications made by W3C as well as DTD comments.
The W3C Validation Service never do such kind of checks. For example, regarding HTML4, the value for
<OL type> is written as CDATA in DTD, the comments explicitly says, however, it is supposed to be "(1|a|A|i|I)".
This is just because DTD is unable to so such expressions. In short, even if you write it as <OL type="USO800">, it will not be detected as error. Another HTML-lint 5 is, on the other hand, designed to check everything including those trivial things.
That is, passing the W3C validation means it is correct in terms of DTD but does not mean it is guranteed as correct HTML. Yet DTD validation of Another HTML-lint 5 is developed on its own, so we still recommend you to use W3C validation as well.
No, there is no guarantee. It only provides grammatical checks and does not guarantee how the page is to be displayed. Full marks is not always required to display it as intended in a certain environment.
Also, it checks just a few things in terms of accessbility described in WAI.
Full marks isn't necessarily essential.
It is always better not to trust everything you hear, no matter how famous the person is. You have to figure out on yor own whether he/she is trustworthy, and you will be required to gain enough knowledge to tell.
That only means it looks perfect in your environment and not sure about other environments. If you want the page to be displayed to everyone as intended, you need to follow the grammar.
In reality, however, most of the web browsers are smart enough to make up for the defects, so it will be displayed correctly for most of the visiters. Yet if you follow the grammar, more visiters will be able to see the page as you intended.
It could be said that trying to get full marks is similar to "trying to speak correct Japanese", but HTML grammar is not a natural language, thus they are not actually the same. Although both of them have some stiff side. Please be aware that getting full marks itself is not enough. Another HTML-lint 5 never check the content of your website. Speaking ridiculous stuff in proper grammar does not mean anything. The content is of course much more important than the grammar, but still correcting the grammar never affect on the content.
It must be only because the webmasters of the major website do not have enough skills to follow the W3C rules. Or if they break the rules on purpose in order to display the page as intended, they should not use HTML in the first place. If they still want to use HTML in any way, they should ask W3C to change their rules. Otherwise, they should just make a new protcol which is better than HTML and familiarize it.
Those explanations are tried to be written as easy as possible, but some of the basics of HTML are tend to be skipped. If you have a specific part that you do not understand, we will try to rewrite it. However if it seems difficult generally, please see other websites which provide with better information about the basics of HTML.
Unfortunately, recognition of the correct HTML grammar is very low. The developers of these authoring tools which generate incorrect HTML, are just trying to generate certain HTML which will be displayed as intended in certain browsers such as Mozilla and MSIE. Therefore, you may want to use such authoring tools for the first rough HTML creation and then adjust it with text editors.
However this sounds funny and you might wonder what the authoring tools are for.
Unfortunately no. Another HTML-lint 5 is unable to tell if the ads are inserted by advertisers or created purposely by editors.
However, even if you get high score excluding the ads, that does not make so much sense because the page(HTML) will be displayed with the ads to your website visitors anyway. If any fatal error is included in the ads part, the visitors will not be able to see your website. Your website should be evaluated including the ads. The ads is a part of your HTML and you are responsible for which provider you choose. It is the same for CGI etc. provided by providers.
It seems you do not have enough knowledge to write tags, so please learn more abotu HTML basics.
If DOCTYPE declaration is missing, you can put the following declaratin
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">at the beginning of the document. Also you should know what the declaration means.
In case you already have DOCTYPE declaration and still get many errors, it seems your current DOCTYPE declaration is improper. HTML has various versions and the above DOCTYPE is relatively suitable in many cases as it has "Transitional".
In addition, you may get less erros by excluding religious items from cheking.
Start all over again.
<br /><br />⇒
<br /> <br />
They are physically modified but still not logically corrected. This can not be said a good HTML. You have to think why you want to make the character red, why the sentence should be centered. The <br /> one is quite awful. Regarding "target", you can not just use an altenative way.
DOCTYPE indicates the type of HTML used in the HTML document. It is just like for example "This document is written in Tsugaru dialect". You might already know HTML has various versions such as HTML4.0 and HTML3.2. If you write HTML referring to a HTML3.2 reference book, you should declare "This document is written in HTML3.2" at the beginning. Please see Results Explanation as well.
No official grammar is provided for Mozilla and MSIE. The grammar is called "Document Type Definition (DTD)". DOCTYPE is mean to indicate which DTD the HTML document follows, therefore it is not possible for such HTML documents designed for Mozilla or MSIE to declare DOCTYPE. Please check the corresponding HTML version to validate your HTML for Mozilla or MSIE.
Most of the errors are based on objective reasons. Every error has a source such as (W3C etc). A few of the religious and existential errors are subjective and apocryphal. If you have any questions with the results, please contact us at email@example.com .
Japanese character encoding is rarely detected as a false positive error. This occurs when a very few Japanese encoding is included or there is a long gap between the first Japanese encoding and the next. To avoide this false positive error, you can put some comment in Japanese at the beginning area of the HTML document.
FYI: Mozilla4.5(or older) is not able to handle stylesheet well at all. Please do not use MSIE3 stylesheet. MSIE4.5 and MSIE5 are much better.
cgi-lib.pl: Unknown Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded; charset=iso-2022-jp" is displayed when trying to start checking.
Some of the user agents (Lynx2.8j etc.) output such a Content-type on form sending. This seems to occur when cgi-lib.pl is used. To avoid this issue, please patch cgi-lib.pl or make a change on Lynx not to add charset=iso-2022-jp to Content-type.
This deos not seem to occur in case of CGI.pm.
- Get resource for the entered URL, Save it to work file. File size resticted
- In case it is specified directly in data area or a client filename is specified, Save it to work file instead.
- If non-HTML (not text/html) is received from the URL, Delete it and terminate processing.
- Validate and check the received file with htmllint.pm .
- When it is set to check existence of links in the HTML, only header information of the URL is called. Content of the URL is not received.
- Delete work file.
- Return results.
However, since Another HTML-lint 5 accesses other servers as an alternative, it could be used for unauthorized access. It could be used for DoS attack or to request password files etc. Ring actively involved in security measures.
It is probably not, because HDML is a completely different protcol. Only data area might be available.
Another HTML-lint 5 is based on the original Another HTML-lint and XyXon,Inc. has added support for HTML5. XyXon, Inc. does not disclose the source code.
Please visit the original website, where the source is disclosed, for commercial use.