Anne van Kesteren

GoT - valid HTML 4.01 Strict

Webdesign & Graphics one of the forums on Gathering of Tweakers and the forum I visit the most validates as HTML 4.01 Strict. The only reason my individual post doesn't validate is because of two links in my signature. Apparently target=_blank is added.

That's not a very big mistake in my humble opinion. It isn't a syntax error. (Not that I wouldn't vote against such practices.)


  1. Heh, my topic got locked :-)

    Posted by Anne at

  2. I read the title of this post, so I checked Webdesign & Graphics with my favorite Validate Local HTML from the Web Developer toolbar for Firefox and it said at the end of the document:
    The maximum number of errors was reached. Further errors in the document have not been reported.

    It depends on what you call 'valid', I suppose :-)

    Posted by Tom at

  3. Hmm, strange. It is valid SGML (and therefore valid HTML), though it wouldn't be very useful if it was displayed as such.

    They are suffering from XML (or the NET feature of SGML) syntax which is valid HTML only not appropriate.

    Posted by Anne at

  4. Contributing to GoT considered harmful.

    Posted by Kris at

  5. It is valid SGML (and therefore valid HTML)

    You mean "well formed" instead of "valid"?

    My weblog is valid HTML 4.01 Strict. The W3C Validator gets that right, but the WDG Validator gets it wrong, since it doesn't support the SGML NET feature used in Blogger's bar.

    Maybe this validation problem Tom had was something similar?

    Posted by Charl van Niekerk at

  6. I meant correct. SGML doesn't have such thing as well-formed. It doesn't have error handling.

    Posted by Anne at

  7. Kris, could you elaborate on that?

    Posted by Anne at

  8. I posted the problem. It will be fixed, eventually. And target=_blank will be removed completely. How cool.

    Posted by Anne at

  9. Indeed cool that it validates. But I don't visit GoT under normal circumstances — I really dislike the nazistic moderation, I like something more gezellig...

    Posted by Ben at

  10. Kris, could you elaborate on that?

    As a forum to express opinion, GoT is fine. As a place to get valuable help on developing websites it sucks. Visit dedicated usenet groups instead.

    Posted by Kris at

  11. Once the W&G moderator drops by, every reply of his adds another validation error. They should fix their ampersands.

    Posted by Kris at

  12. 50% of the pages I tried to validate, didn't. what was the point again? Oh, the code looks horrible, all on one line.

    Posted by Hayo at

  13. Of course Anne, that was not meant as an offense to you. There should be more like you at GoT.

    Posted by Kris at

  14. It is virtually impossible to get a 100% validating forum when you have a whole legacy of invalid content and still some people with HTML-rights walking around but with no clue whatsoever of what 'validating' means ;)

    Validating hasn't been our main-concern up to know, although the templates themselves have been built with it in mind. Yes, there are still some issues like the ampersands and the targets that are still being generated for some links, but we will get there...

    Posted by crisp at

  15. crisp, I completely understand the difficulties with validating a forum, and applaud your efforts; keep up the good work!

    I was just a bit puzzled by, seeing how critical Anne is most of the time, the fact he posted about this at all.

    Posted by Hayo at

  16. In the xhtml strict dtd i found this:
    This is the same as HTML 4 Strict except for changes due to the differences between XML and SGML.

    Posted by w3news at