| 10:56 am on Apr 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yes i noticed this this morning but when i tried it i got a "this server is not responding" message,
i guess a few teething troubles, a good idea though
well done PT
| 11:10 am on Apr 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I completely agree with you Brett that this is a very constructive step in the right direction. (The problem is though that the server is not responding when I try to access the validation tool) I suppose the bug will be fixed shortly.
| 1:01 pm on Apr 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The only thing I've been happy about so far with this tool, is that I find that I'm not alone in having it not work for me! ;)
Regardless, it is, IMHO, a huge step in the right direction. I'm curious to see what it actually validates to though in terms of HTML version, document type, etc.
Should be fun to take a look around though, and find those many pages that *seemed* to be well constructed!
| 1:04 pm on Apr 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Jim said they just put it up yesterday. This is it's first debut. It's CSE - they'll get it right. For those that don't have a copy of CSE, it will be a really good experience. CSE is excellent stuff (I know, I know - it's pricey, but you know I don't go around recommending too much commercial software - ever. This and Opera are about it).
| 1:14 pm on Apr 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I have enjoyed CSE, with very favorable results. There's something about a small HTML document, that is formatted properly for all browsers - that is simply tough to beat.
Knowing how the application works offline though, there are a number of options that I would like to see (if they make it) online as well through PositionTech. (Options that come to mind would include the new syntax features of v. 5.03, spell checking, and the ability to batch process a number of documents.)
Again, it is irregardless. This is a step in the right direction, and one that I love hearing more about.
| 5:47 pm on Apr 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
this is a great tool...it helps us see our errors...
but i am wondering if the spiders rank us accordingly (i mean depending on the errors)???
| 5:49 pm on Apr 4, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The CSE desktop validator is amazing! Wow! Thanks for pointing this one out.
| 12:01 am on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Am I the only one who can't find the Positiontech validator?
| 12:03 am on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
there is a bright yellow "H" beside pages when you log into your positiontech account. Just click on that and off it goes.
It took me awhile to find it.
| 1:07 am on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If you have Homesite, you can integrate the CSE validator and replace Homesite's native validator. That makes for very a nice workflow.
| 2:23 am on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It is using ColdFusion which seems to prevent it from working on any ColdFusion websites (all of mine). This is a pretty obvious and serious problem. hard to believe they went live with it with such a glaring bug!
| 3:49 am on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You can't find the bugs unless you beta test it.
| 11:29 am on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
dvb_99, the question is not so much how the search engines will rank you but if they will be able to read your HTML-code at all. If you have syntax errors in your documents there is no way to know how any given spider will "understand" that - or if it will simple skip it.
| 1:14 pm on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well it worked for me on two documents, then it stopped working. It started giving me cold fusion errors, since all my stuff is on a cold fusion server. :(
| 1:41 pm on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
It worked just fine on one of our client's cold fusion sites.
Why would it not work specifically on a CF site? The validator doesn't care about the server...it's simply parsing the end result HTML.
| 7:25 pm on Apr 5, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I sent them a quick email, and here is what they wrote back:
The syntax checker will work for any URL that does not redirect or
require a cookie. Your CF pages should not be a problem. This
application is in beta, we are monitoring it and making modifications as
needed. We do expect it will be stabilized shortly.
My pages do not require a cookie or redirect. I still got the CF errors though. Hope they fix it soon, I like this new feature. :)
| 2:18 am on Apr 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
In this general context it may be worth noting that the small and fast iCab browser for Mac ( [icab.de...] ), still under development, has a smile/frown icon in the browser window that shows whether the page you are viewing uses valid HTML or not. If you click the icon it gives you an HTML error report on the page. It doesn't check XHTML yet, but does a good job with HTML4.