<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Quick Tip: Validate your code ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-19T05:08:25-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Validate early, validate often]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3439808]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I like to look at validation roughly as the equivalent of &quot;old school&quot; compiling your code.  Unless you are the 1 in a hundred &quot;perfect&quot; coder, I find it is easier to validate (compile) small pieces of code and build, and validate, up from there. As the story points out, one coding mistake  can generate a cascade of messages.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3439808]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron_007]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:38:41 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[HTML for email]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3439659]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Does anyone know of a decent validator that will show &quot;errors&quot; for non-cross-platform compatible HTML for email?  (Perhaps one written in 2001 and never updated    We have a lot of clients who run e-blasts, and inevatibly designers who are used to coding for modern web browsers have no idea how far behind email platforms are.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3439659]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Shane10101]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:28:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[From a users point of view ...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3438317]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[For a number of reasons (mainly relating to actual not perceived security issues with other browsers) I choose to use the Opera browser, and have done so since mid 90's.  For instance, Opera is consistently reported by Secunia  as being error-free.So ...I can assure all your nay-sayers that if your web pages are correctly written (not just for Internet Explorer and Netscape aka Firefox) it will be correctly displayed in ALL browsers conforming to current web standards.The fact that so many BAD web pages display correctly in Opera is because of Opera's attention to creating javascript(?) code to correct bad code.The single worst group of offenders are in the financial services sectors - big banks - who still insist their code written exclusively for IE6 (and often earlier) is secure.   Try to validate these pages and you'll find they often have hundreds of major coding errors by current W3C standards.For users, VALIDATING YOUR CODE is essential, near enough is NOT good enough. The irony is that now that IE8 + (has finally attempted to conform to W3C standards) IE8+ reportedly seems to have exactly the same problems as other browsers.  MS apparently also has to provide javascript(?) corrections to view earlier poor web page programming for IE6 and earlier.  So ... if this is correct, proper programming in the first place (and validation) would have saved all this hassle.BTW - validating this page with W3C produced  &quot; Result:197 Errors, 221 warning(s)&quot;.Maybe TechRepublic should get its own website in order before entering into an article about correct web page coding!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3438317]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ian3880]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 03:43:10 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Surely it's a matter of pride in ones code.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3438200]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[According to the W3C validation service, this page alone has 164 errors and 170 warnings - part of the problem of using a content management system as compared to writing the code yourself.Personally, I get almost paranoid about validation, but through reasons outside of my control, have to admit to not achieving it 100% of the time. Most commonly, when using third party scripts.Doesn't mean I don't try though and like the previous posts, I like the Web Developers Toolbar, which I tend to use extensively.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3438200]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[lastchip]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:56:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Web Developers Toolbar]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3437926]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[is another FF add-on that simplifies code validation. It also has features for working with cookies, CSS, forms, and images. It contains tools to resize the page and outline the document elements. There are three (3) active icons that display green check marks for correct HTML, CSS and Scripting or display red Xs for errors.I leave it on when online and it is interesting the number of major sites (including tech sites) with bad code.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3437926]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[usr19x@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:40:20 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Check as you develop]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3437743]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[One tool I use is the FF addon HTML Validator.  It is very easy to use and helpful in pointing out the errors and where in the code they occur, similar to W3C:https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/html-validator/?id=249]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-343335-3437743]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[brackishwaters]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 03:02:40 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

