DanA
msg:3145238 | 5:57 pm on Nov 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
I didn't notice. The beta HTML VALIDATOR (based on Tidy and OpenSP) will allow you to validate offline with Firefox or Seamonkey and will give you the same messages as the W3C (SGML parser option).
|
Robin_reala
msg:3145319 | 7:32 pm on Nov 3, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Can't say I’ve noticed, but if it’s really bothering you you could relieve some of their load by running a local install :)
|
HelenDev
msg:3147482 | 4:19 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Ah! I didn't know you could download it. After some hunting I've finally found the download and quite frankly the install instructions look terrifying to me! Maybe I will try the Firefox one...
|
Robin_reala
msg:3147592 | 5:24 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
The Firefox one is based on Tidy which (as far as I'm aware) is more of a lint than a validator. Still useful though. Validator installation isn't easy - took me some hard work and a couple of trips to IRC to install it on my Mac - but it might be worth it in the long run, especially if you're working with a group of developers.
|
encyclo
msg:3147597 | 5:30 pm on Nov 6, 2006 (gmt 0) |
There is also an excellent alternative validator available from the WDG: [htmlhelp.com...] It isn't developed at the same pace than the W3C validator, but it is perfect for most situations with good friendly error messages. It isn't the first time that the W3C validator has experienced slowdowns. It is a shame that the W3C are seemingly unable or unwilling to ensure that their most-used community resource works fast and reliably. As far as I know, they are still using resources donated by INRIA in France.
|
HelenDev
msg:3156113 | 12:32 pm on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Cheers for the link, encyclo :)
|
Skier
msg:3156165 | 1:45 pm on Nov 14, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Yes there is some sort of problem. I have been validating a lot of pages over the past few days. The validator has worked "properly" on only about 50% of my visits. I hope this is temporary. It's a great service they provide over there.
|
|
