YBM not valid HTML...
Web site not valid HTML : http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ww...Inline&group=0
and nor are the forums: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...Inline&group=0
Very few reasons why a website shouldn't be valid these days (the occasional "modern" CSS tag etc)
Was this an in-house redesign or external?
Originally Posted by mjcp
Well perhaps that is why I can no longer access any posts from work. I can get onto the YBW site, then onto the forums and even the individual forums but try and open an individual thread and it all hangs up
you really take much notice of that?
have a look at this: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ww...idator%2F1.654
A bit of an anal checker me thinks ....
It may be a strict checker but standards are there for a reason!
Two points/questions that are often brought up when validation is mentioned (handily answered on the same W3C site) are:
“My site looks right and works fine - isn't that enough?”
The answer to this one is that markup languages are no more than data formats. So a website doesn't look like anything at all! It only takes on a visual appearance when it is presented by your browser.
In practice, different browsers can and do display the same page very differently. This is deliberate, and doesn't imply any kind of browser bug. A term sometimes used for this is WYSINWOG - What You See Is Not What Others Get (unless by coincidence). It is indeed one of the principal strengths of the web, that (for example) a visually impaired user can select very large print or text-to-speech without a publisher having to go to the trouble and expense of preparing a separate edition.
“Lots of websites out there don't validate - including household-name companies.”
Do remember: household-name companies expect people to visit because of the name and in spite of dreadful websites. Can you afford that luxury?
Even if you can, do you want to risk being on the wrong side of a lawsuit if your site proves inaccessible to - for instance - a disabled person who cannot use a 'conventional' browser? Accessibility is the law in many countries. Whilst validation doesn't guarantee accessibility (there is no substitute for common sense), it should be an important component of exercising "due diligence". It is now just over a year since a court first awarded damages to a blind user against the owners of a website he found inaccessible (Maguire vs SOCOG, August 2000).
This is an area not dissimilar to the pipe replacement on heaters when on inland waterways (a recent thread on this forum). People are moaning about it, it's a standard that needs to be met to get the certificate and some people choose to ignore it. No doubt their boat won't sink/burn/pollute etc in day to day use, BUT the standard has been put there to insure, on the whole, that the risk is reduced.
Similarly, web standards insure that a given site will be interpreted in the same fashion by 5 or 6 different browsers and the myriad of version of each. As a site owner, you may choose to ignore this but you do so at the risk of alienating your visitors or worse, not getting some traffic due to a poor listing on the search engines.