Re: Are "include files" serach egine friendly and HTML/XHTML compliant?

Hi,

Thanks. I am using the online Validator from W3C when I was reading some
articles.

I am not sure but I think it has problem with ASP pages. In any case, I've
done with it by removing all VBscript codes and test it again pure HTML
tags.

Thanks again.
"Ronx" <ronx917@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:enp2NK1xGHA.4876@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When validating, you must check the page as returned from a server, not
the page as saved on your hard disc.
Any unrendered ASP code will return an error in a validator - it must be
rendered by a server.
HTML Validator sounds like a software product I used to use - perfect for
.htm pages, useless for .asp pages, for the above reasons.
--
Ron Symonds - Microsoft MVP (FrontPage)
Reply only to group - emails will be deleted unread.
FrontPage Support: http://www.frontpagemvps.com/

"xfile" <cou-cou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23%23e%232vxxGHA.4232@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

Thanks for all of your inputs, and since many points are similar so I
just replied the first one in response to all.

(1) About the doctype: No, I did not mean just by inserting doctype and
hope it'd automatically comply with the standard. Did some homework
before asked.

(2) About the include file: Yes, it is about the include files. I did
the test on the following - If include files are listed, HTML Validator
can't even identify doctype and some meta tags, and once include files
are removed, it can detect it ok. So it is about the include files.

(3) Other HTML standards: All points are correct. Many of my HTML tags
are incorrect not because of ASP pages but because of the tool I used (FP
at this point) and lack of correct HTML knowledge of myself - not to
blame anything or anyone. I did run test on pages that have removed the
major portion of codes and cleaned up many HTML errors.

(4) Finished vs. unprocessed page: It's "finished" product - I guess. I
tested on the main template of our site, and by default, the main content
area is empty, but it has several include files and some ASP codes to
display product categories and other elements. Other static texts or
forms or codes will be inserted into the main content area based on the
type of pages is needed. In that case, some are unfinished (e.g. user
input form) and some will become finished (e.g. confirmation page). Pure
processing page are excluded from being modified by this template.

(5) Side question about the table height attribute: According to W3C,
XHTML 1.0 Transitional does not support table's " height" attribute so I
removed it from one page (just for testing before doing some major
errors). It appears no difference, but I am not so sure. I have many
tables with height attribute and table is a headache for me. So the
question is - Shall I follow the standard and removing all table height
attributes or leaving there will produce no harms, if not good?

Continue from (4), I did find, HTML Validator will still give errors for
left codes such as <%productquantity%> - just an example, it will give
error messages, such as Windows runtime error (can't remember correctly)
or font attribute error which those fonts are not listed in this page.

I assumed header section has been interpreted correctly, because I could
find our site and major pages from Goggle with our description tag. On
the other hand, HTML Validator says the other way.

In any case, my intension of the question is very simple. I am satisfied
with our pages but also wish to make it more "compliant" with HTML
standard, so they are cleaner and maybe good for search engine and
visitors.

In fact, I am just confused by if ASP page is counted as HTML page? If
it's not, some errors are fine to be forgotten and I could just use plain
page for verification and then insert codes. If it is treated 100%as
HTML page, I then have to dig deeper into those codes.

"Jens Peter Karlsen [FP-MVP]" <jpkarlsen@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uqaoe2t1jrrp58m4ekumh3o4500h367ava@xxxxxxxxxx
It will be interpreted correctly if it is written correctly. Just
because you insert a doctype tag, doesn't magically make the page
compliant with that doctype. If you give us links to one of the asp
pages you have problems with, we can give you some pointers on how to
make them compliant.

Regards Jens Peter Karlsen. Microsoft MVP - Frontpage.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:26:46 +0800, "xfile"
<cou-cou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks.

The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML Validator to test
some
ASP pages, it showed countless errors.

If that's the case, why would we still declare doctype and follow those
standards as they can't be interpretate correctly?



"Stefan B Rusynko" <sbr_enjoy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eO%23O0voxGHA.2168@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Once rendered by the ASP engine all ASP code is just html to the users
and
Search engines
- how compliant it is w/ any guidelines depends on how compliant your
wrote your code

--

_____________________________________________
SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
"Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:

http://www.frontpagemvps.com/FrontPageNewsGroups/tabid/53/Default.aspx
_____________________________________________


"xfile" <cou-cou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:elWdFBnxGHA.4336@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Hi,
|
| Have a question wish to ask for a long time.
|
| Almost all of our pages are ASP pages and use "include files" and
CodePage
| at the very top of the page.
|
| I was wondering, by doing so, are they search engine friendly and do
they
| compliant with HTML/XHTML standards?
|
| When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors.
|
| Many thanks in advance.
|
|









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are "include files" serach egine friendly and HTML/XHTML compliant?
    ... If you are pasting your code into the validator, yes, it'll have a problem ... I am not sure but I think it has problem with ASP pages. ... I've done with it by removing all VBscript codes and test it again pure ... HTML tags. ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.programming)
  • Re: Are "include files" serach egine friendly and HTML/XHTML compliant?
    ... It sounds to me like the html validator you talk about is a local tool ... generated html not the raw asp code. ... for verification and then insert codes. ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.programming)
  • Re: Are "include files" serach egine friendly and HTML/XHTML compliant?
    ... The reason for the question is that when I ran HTML ... ASP pages, it showed countless errors. ... :> To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see: ... :> | When using HTML Validator, it gave us so many errors. ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.programming)
  • Re: Are "include files" serach egine friendly and HTML/XHTML compliant?
    ... It's right, proper, and correct to make the doctype the first line in the ... as long as the rest of HTML codes are compliant with the ... job - I am more than happy to care for why HTLM Validator produce errors ... to favor doctype tag better. ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.programming)
  • Re: Massive HTML coding errors
    ... that a validator wouldn't comment on, ... The DTD at the top of your HTML code is invalid! ... those for your images, and a width of, say, 50% for the div that starts ... You need to be more careful when defining "font-family". ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html)