XHTML validation

[timhaynes1985]

Hi, I could really do with some help.

How can I fix these validation errors/warnings?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...hp/home.html;accept=*/*;accept-language=en-gb

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Hi, I could really do with some help.

There's help in the error messages you got.

How can I fix these validation errors/warnings?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...hp/home.html;accept=*/*;accept-language=en-gb

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Don't you appreciate the help you already got, in the validator's report?

"An entity reference was found in the document, but there is no reference by
that name defined. Often this is caused by misspelling the reference name,
unencoded ampersands, or by leaving off the trailing semicolon (. The most
common cause of this error is unencoded ampersands in URLs as described by
the WDG in "Ampersands in URLs"."

The part "The most common cause of this error is unencoded ampersands in
URLs" is emphasized there.

By the way, why do you claim conformance to XHTML syntax on the page where
you have validation errors? Shouldn't you remove the false claim as the
first move? Well, maybe not. All those "valid XHTML" symbols are so often
incorrect, maybe even blatant lies, that many knowledgeable people take them
for a negative value (and others have no idea of what crap they are).

 

[timhaynes1985]

There's help in the error messages you got.


Don't you appreciate the help you already got, in the validator's report?

"An entity reference was found in the document, but there is no reference by
that name defined. Often this is caused by misspelling the reference name,
unencoded ampersands, or by leaving off the trailing semicolon (. The most
common cause of this error is unencoded ampersands in URLs as described by
the WDG in "Ampersands in URLs"."

The part "The most common cause of this error is unencoded ampersands in
URLs" is emphasized there.

By the way, why do you claim conformance to XHTML syntax on the page where
you have validation errors? Shouldn't you remove the false claim as the
first move? Well, maybe not. All those "valid XHTML" symbols are so often
incorrect, maybe even blatant lies, that many knowledgeable people take them
for a negative value (and others have no idea of what crap they are).

Yes, I appreciate the help I got on the validation site and I
appreciate the time you took to look into this. Maybe I didn't make
myself clear and this is probably the wrong place to ask but isn't
there a piece of code to replace the ampersand in a ul (maybe PHP)?

As for making a false claim to my site containing no errors, that's
rediculous. I checked my xhtml code at the validator and it passed
sucessfully. I then checked my CSS which also passed sucessfully. I
wanted to link the images to the results, and subsequently, this
created the warnings in the xhtml validation. I was on a different
computer when I saw this and had no way of logging in and altering
this. Anyway, for now I have removed the link for the css image, this
is the one that was causing the problem. I will restore it once I
find the solution.

Anyway, thanks for your time.

 

[rf]

Yes, I appreciate the help I got on the validation site and I
appreciate the time you took to look into this. Maybe I didn't make
myself clear and this is probably the wrong place to ask but isn't
there a piece of code to replace the ampersand in a ul (maybe PHP)?

And if you had gone to where the error message pointed you, the WDG page
where ampersands in URLs is discussed, you would already have your answer.

Even google knows about this, google for "ampersands in urls". The very
first hit is the relevant page.

After you scroll down a bit you will get to the section about ampersands in
urls where it quite clearly says to replace each & with &

 

[dorayme]

Maybe I didn't make
myself clear and this is probably the wrong place to ask but isn't
there a piece of code to replace the ampersand in a ul (maybe PHP)?

Replace your "&"s with "amp;"s

Eg. "Marks & Spencer" becomes "Marks & Spencer"

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Yes, I appreciate the help I got on the validation site and I
appreciate the time you took to look into this.

I don't believe you. If you appreciated the help, you would have read it and
utilized it. And you would not have fullquoted my message down to the sig.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear

You didn't.

and this is probably the wrong place to ask

So why do you ask here?

but isn't
there a piece of code to replace the ampersand in a ul (maybe PHP)?

Read the help you got.

As for making a false claim to my site containing no errors, that's
rediculous.

You can't imagine how ridiculous you look now.

subsequently, this
created the warnings in the xhtml validation.

No, they were error messages.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Hi, I could really do with some help.

How can I fix these validation errors/warnings?

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.boss-game.com/in....

You seem to have gotten rid of the validation errors at the moment as
a result of comments by others. However click your link to the W3C
validator above , check the verbose output box, and revalidate. Then
look at Content-Type which you will find is text/html. This means that
even if your code is perfect xhtml, it is only being served as html,
so you might as well just write the code as html 4.01 strict in the
first place. To serve as true xhtml, you would need to associate some
extension such as .xhtml with the mime type application/xhtml+xml for
xhtml. The extension .html already is used for the mime type text/html
on most servers. If you do this, one very important thing happens. The
xhtml page is parsed as xml which is extremely strict and in case of
errors often will give an error message rather than a view of the
page. But serving the page as html uses the loose-as-a-goose html
parser which often will show the page, perhaps not as intended, when
there are even many errors. If you were to associate an extension such
as .xhtml with the mime type application/xhtml+xml on your server, you
could then serve true xhtml once any errors are corrected. This will
work on most recent browser as they will handle true xhtml. However
you will find that no version of an IE browser, at least through IE 7,
can view a true xhtml page served properly. You must use some rather
complex code on the server to rewrite the true xhml page as an html
page if you want IE to view it - there are other techniques. At least
header exchange between the server and browser can tell you that an IE
browser is not capable of xhtml.

However you are in good/bad company as likely over 99% of pages
claiming to be xhtml are not served properly. Now as a final example,
click on your link to the W3C validator, substitute http://www.microsoft.com
for the url of your page, check Verboise Output and click Revalidate.
You will find that the home page for Microsoft is claiming to be
xhtml, but it is only being served as html. If it were being served as
true xhtml with the proper mime type application/xhtml+xml, it could
not be seen on IE browsers! Moreover, I doubt if the xml parser would
allow the page to be seen on any browser because of the many
validation errors on the Microsoft home page!

 

[cwdjrxyz]

You seem to have gotten rid of the validation errors at the moment as
a result of comments by others. However click your link to the W3C
validator above , check the verbose output box, and revalidate. Then
look at Content-Type which you will find is text/html. This means that
even if your code is perfect xhtml, it is only being served as html,
so you might as well just write the code as html 4.01 strict in the
first place. To serve as true xhtml, you would need to associate some
extension such as .xhtml with the mime type application/xhtml+xml for
xhtml. The extension .html already is used for the mime type text/html
on most servers. If you do this, one very important thing happens. The
xhtml page is parsed as xml which is extremely strict and in case of
errors often will give an error message rather than a view of the
page. But serving the page as html uses the loose-as-a-goose html
parser which often will show the page, perhaps not as intended, when
there are even many errors. If you were to associate an extension such
as .xhtml with the mime type application/xhtml+xml on your server, you
could then serve true xhtml once any errors are corrected. This will
work on most recent browser as they will handle true xhtml. However
you will find that no version of an IE browser, at least through IE 7,
can view a true xhtml page served properly. You must use some rather
complex code on the server to rewrite the true xhml page as an html
page if you want IE to view it - there are other techniques. At least
header exchange between the server and browser can tell you that an IE
browser is not capable of xhtml.

However you are in good/bad company as likely over 99% of pages
claiming to be xhtml are not served properly. Now as a final example,
click on your link to the W3C validator, substitutehttp://www.microsoft.com
for the url of your page, check Verboise Output and click Revalidate.
You will find that the home page for Microsoft is claiming to be
xhtml, but it is only being served as html. If it were being served as
true xhtml with the proper mime type application/xhtml+xml, it could
not be seen on IE browsers! Moreover, I doubt if the xml parser would
allow the page to be seen on any browser because of the many
validation errors on the Microsoft home page!

Since writing this, the validation link to your page is not being
found. However I have the link to the page you were validating, which
is http://www.boss-game.com/index.php/home.html . At the moment this
page is working. Just use this url in the W3C validator at http://validator..w3.org/
to check the various things I mentioned.