uploaded my new site and the validation fails because I use of a few minor things like using a space between a sentence in the text and ending tags whats up with that? http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ww...Inline&group=0

looks like it's your code that sucks

it's a good job they don't do a grammar/spell checker too!

look at the TIDY option in the validator page to see what you should have put and sometimes cryptic explanations below the error messages

I've noticed some oddities with the W3 validator as of late myself...specifically, the inability to recognize onblur and onfocus as proper anchor attributes (apparently, people who don't use mice don't count anymore.)

This isn't the only reason that the W3C sucks, but it's becoming a fairly big one.

In your particular case, though, davemies is right. It's because you use & instead of the correct & (for a special HTML character entity) and because you're using absmiddle for alignment (try to use CSS for that instead.) Fix those, and at least 4 out of the 5 errors go away.

A space in the text should not come up as an error you can't even use quotation marks anymore because of it.

It's not the space, Barry...it's the character before it. It's just that the W3C has to explain things in W3 doublespeak.

Originally Posted by audiomad

A space in the text should not come up as an error you can't even use quotation marks anymore because of it.

which line of code is that? can you post it so we can see/help?

Its in the validation in the alt tag

you just need to add the alt attribute and the text replacement for that image

alt="alternative text..."

Originally Posted by davemies

you just need to add the alt attribute and the text replacement for that image

alt="alternative text..."

p.s. you should spell check your work site and check it for grammar.

If you don't like the language rules, change your DTD To HTML Loose where you can do it the wrong way.

I do have to admit that W3C is quite strict and does pick out the smallest things not to validate. I have been using a validator plugin for firefox and it seems to do the job quite nicely, but its not exactly made by the people at W3C. For the moment its validating things close enough, but the validator at W3C can be oh so picky, how important is it to get the code 100% validated?

And I still think that if the W3 could get a girl once in a while, I'd still be able to use frames and tables that work in most browsers...

I've noticed the onblur and onfocus issues lately too!

It does have these small things it decides to pick out for what seems no reason, my pondering is this - will it effect your website in terms of search engine ranking that much if you have 1-10 warnings that need fixing according to the official W3C validator?

<div align="left"><a href="pages/faq.html" title="Faq's: Questions & Answers">Faq's</a></div>

This is the line he's talking about. It should read:

<div align="left"><a href="pages/faq.html" title="Faq's: Questions &amp; Answers">FAQs</a></div>

That should solve most of it right there.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

<div align="left"><a href="pages/faq.html" title="Faq's: Questions & Answers">Faq's</a></div>

This is the line he's talking about. It should read:

<div align="left"><a href="pages/faq.html" title="Faq's: Questions &amp; Answers">FAQs</a></div>

That should solve most of it right there.

I fixed that part thanks still a few pieces to fix to get it validated

The *real* thing that sucks with the W3C is defining standards without creating a reference implementation.

For example, when Sun published the J2EE specification, they also published a reference implementation, a server that implemented the standard.

This is common practice in the software world. The W3C on the other hand publishes a standard for web documents, and then cries that none of the browsers are fully compliant.

The primary reason that reference implementations are important is they validate the feasibility of implementing a specification or standard.

Originally Posted by willcode4beer

The *real* thing that sucks with the W3C is defining standards without creating a reference implementation.

For example, when Sun published the J2EE specification, they also published a reference implementation, a server that implemented the standard.

This is common practice in the software world. The W3C on the other hand publishes a standard for web documents, and then cries that none of the browsers are fully compliant.

The primary reason that reference implementations are important is they validate the feasibility of implementing a specification or standard.

Hear hear! That is so true, also take php for example, we can go to the official site for it (http://php.net) and look up any function and see examples of it in action. The W3C standards you tend to have to guess your way through it or find support forums like this, just to be valid and get the effect you want.

Got it down to one error any idea how to fix this one?

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">_qacct="p-dfGpKpai6wsso";quantserve();</script>
<noscript>
<a href="http://www.quantcast.com/p-dfGpKpai6wsso" target="_blank"><img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-dfGpKpai6wsso.gif" style="display: none" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></a>
</noscript>
<!-- End Quantcast tag -->

Just remove the noscript section, if a user has javascript turned off oh well, personally I only use FF and Opera and in both I have quantserved blocked, it's blocked on the adblock plus lists. I don't really think that removing it will hurt you, since very few users have it turned off, and those that do likely have blocking stuff like me.