affordable website design

Hi great news group.

Thanks,

Professional
Website Design

Re: affordable website design

In message
<64279ec2-2f4f-4de1-9d46-b8d88d3cd1a0@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
sq58cd0pxz9ms2g6xich@gmail.com writes
>Hi great news group.
>
>Thanks,
>
> Professional
>Website Design

Only 71 validation errors...
--
Chris Hughes
"There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start and so on."
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk

Re: affordable website design

> Only 71 validation errors...
> --
> Chris Hughes

For fun I once ran sites offering web design services through the
validators. Very few of them passed!

Re: affordable website design

On Nov 29, 9:20 am, Helpful person wrote:
> > Only 71 validation errors...
> For fun I once ran sites offering web design services through the
> validators. Very few of them passed!

I think there are a total of about 27 websites out there that will
pass, and the owners of them are probably regulars in this group...

As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
meaningless.

Re: affordable website design

Travis Newbury wrote:
>
> As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
> meaningless.

You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
errors. Logic errors are something else altogether. Common sense often
seems to be in short supply where web stuff is concerned. :)

--
Berg

Re: affordable website design

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Bergamot writing
in news:5r87k6F13chkmU1@mid.individual.net:

> Travis Newbury wrote:
>>
>> As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
>> meaningless.
>
> You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
> errors. Logic errors are something else altogether. Common sense often
> seems to be in short supply where web stuff is concerned. :)
>

I told my friend today that I use Opera's speech to test with. She was
surprised, until I explained that you can look at something 50 times and
not see the mistake, but when you _hear_ it, you notice it right away.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Re: affordable website design

On 29 Nov, 16:27, Bergamot wrote:

> You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
> errors.

No, that's _not_ what it means.

Re: affordable website design

In article
<04a0120d-990e-4714-a585-cefcd8926f0b@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.co
m>,
Andy Dingley wrote:

> On 29 Nov, 16:27, Bergamot wrote:
>
> > You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
> > errors.
>
> No, that's _not_ what it means.

Gee, Andy, you are becoming very brief in your old age...

In the usual validation services, there are errors and warnings.
Each of these can be split into different types. It is, for sure,
not a simple matter.

--
dorayme

Re: affordable website design

On 30 Nov, 09:36, dorayme wrote:

> > > You got that right. Validated code only means there aren't any syntax
> > > errors.
>
> > No, that's _not_ what it means.
>
> Gee, Andy, you are becoming very brief in your old age...

That's why we have newsgroup archives. Validity (in SGML) isn't the
same thing as syntactic well-formedness. Someone who has been around
here long enough ought to have picked up on that distinction. Someone
fresh to the group might not know, which is why a statement like that
shouldn't be left lying around unchallenged.

(and in other threads, Mika just isn't worth the extra typing)

> In the usual validation services, there are errors and warnings.

That's not the point. "validation" and "syntactic checking" are two
different things, not two levels of the same thing. It's possible to
use perfect syntax and still be invalid. Even "Furiously sleep ideas
green colorless.", uses correct English syntax but is grammatically
invalid. (The better known, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
is grammatically valid, merely semantically meaningless).

It's also arguable as to whether there are "warnings" from a
validation either. DTD-based SGML validity is Boolean: you either are
or you aren't. If there's a "warning" to be given, then that comes
from some additional notation that can express a concept of "nominally
valid, but inadvisable".

Re: affordable website design

On 2007-11-30, Andy Dingley wrote:
[...]
> That's not the point. "validation" and "syntactic checking" are two
> different things, not two levels of the same thing. It's possible to
> use perfect syntax and still be invalid. Even "Furiously sleep ideas
> green colorless.", uses correct English syntax but is grammatically
> invalid.

No the syntax is pretty bad too. The accidence is about the only thing
correct about that sentence (but English has minimal accidence anyway).

Here is a version which also has incorrect accidence (as well as
incorrect syntax): "Furiousless sleep ideas green colorly".

"Accidence" is how you inflect words, "syntax" is how you put them
together in a sentence. This analysis doesn't apply to all languages,
but makes some sense wherever it's obvious what the difference between a
word and a sentence is and where there is some inflection.

"Grammar" is the union of the two, but may also include more general
requirements like using words intelligibly (which you might call
"semantics").

The point is that the rules or norms for correct use of a natural
language are not easy to write down. The word "grammar" is sometimes
used just to distinguish using the language incorrectly (in the most
general sense) from saying something that is false.

Re: affordable website design

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:58:25 -0800 (PST), Travis Newbury
wrote:

>On Nov 29, 9:20 am, Helpful person wrote:
>> > Only 71 validation errors...
>> For fun I once ran sites offering web design services through the
>> validators. Very few of them passed!
>
>I think there are a total of about 27 websites out there that will
>pass, and the owners of them are probably regulars in this group...
>
>As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
>meaningless.

Valid html is meaningless? Do you think I should be putting
tags
in the of my code like this joker does. I suppose only if I
include a transitional xhtml doctype header.

I took this from his/her homepage:
>
>
>
>

Re: affordable website design

In article
m>,
Andy Dingley wrote:

> > In the usual validation services, there are errors and warnings.
>
> That's not the point. "validation" and "syntactic checking" are two
> different things, not two levels of the same thing.

You snipped the further distinction I was making. I did not go on
to say much, just this:

"Each of these can be split into different types. It is, for
sure, not a simple matter".

--
dorayme

Re: affordable website design

On Nov 30, 4:06 pm, mark4asp wrote:
> >As a tool for a website, validation is useful. As a goal it is
> >meaningless.
> Valid html is meaningless?

Yes, as a goal it is meaningless. As a tool it is invaluable for
helping you build the page.

good plan;
"Validation helped me make my page correct"

bad plan;
"My page will validate no matter what"

> Do you think I should be putting
tags
> in the of my code like this joker does. I suppose only if I
> include a transitional xhtml doctype header.

Yea, that's exactly what I said. (rolling eyes)