11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
11 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Question about W3 Validation and 3rd party scripts

by Barbara Eyre
9 replies
  • WEB DESIGN
    • |
I've had this pop up before and have kind of ignored it, but am curious as to how much of a problem it truly is.

I am currently going through a website I've designed for a client. All my code work (and some 3rd party code work I have control over) validate just fine.

However, it's the code for the SSL site seal that contains 2 errors. They have 2 instances of "id" in the code and the id names begin with __
These two instances are being flagged as violating naming convention. However, when I try to alter or delete them, the site seal no longer works. Grrrrr.

I've considered emailing support for this major SSL cert provider and let them know that their code isn't validating. You would think they would know better! I have the seal in the navigation column of the site, so it shows up on every page of the site ... but this is causing every page of the site to have these 2 same errors.

Now ... is this a major problem when it comes to getting brownie points with the search engine gods, or just don't worry about and be happy knowing my own work is perfect (grins innocently) ?
#html validation #site seal #ssl certificates #w3 schools
  • Profile picture of the author Pete Janelle
    I've run into this as well. It's definitely the SSL provider's error - ID's can't have underscores.

    Now if that error affects the SEO performance, I don't know.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[18239].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barbara Eyre
      Pete,

      Thanks for responding.

      I'm just worried that the same 2 errors on each of the 150+ pages of the site if that would be a problem in the eyes of the search engine gods. HMMMmm.

      I will try to see if the SSL computer will fix their code. If not, guess we'll just wait and see.
      Signature
      Phoenix Rising Web Services | Fibromyalgia Information
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[18816].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author bendiggs
        So the lack of validation shouldn't hurt your search engine rankings, and I wouldn't expect it to have much impact on any of your users, so honsetly, I wouldn't be too worried about it. However, do proceed to contact the certificate provider and get them to clean up their mess, it's just bad form to release something so vitl and not have it in top shape.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[18866].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CMartin
        Originally Posted by Barbara Eyre View Post

        I'm just worried that the same 2 errors on each of the 150+ pages of the site if that would be a problem in the eyes of the search engine gods. HMMMmm.
        Those kind of errors will not be a problem with SEs or with your rankings... and you can simply ignore them. Also, don't be so worried with W3 validation because most of the sites in the internet have some kind of errors when validating with the W3C Markup Validation Service

        For example, the warrior forum is in 2nd place on Google for the keyword internet marketing forum and if you try to validate the main warrior forum page you get 137 Errors and 115 warnings!

        Just as a curiosity, Google.com has 68 errors and 11 warnings and check how many errors a Google SERP page has:
        Markup Validation of http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=internet+marketing+forum - W3C Markup Validator
        At the time of this writing, it had 265 Errors and 12 warnings! Google is currently not even using the most basic tags a page needs, like the <HTML> and </HTML> on their SERPs pages and no closing </BODY> (at least I can't see them with FF or IE by using view source) - and it displays just fine with FF and IE.

        So, don't worry... and don't waste much time with W3 validation - I rarely use them, and I suspect Google and other SEs don't give any importance to the W3 validation (or their pages would have no errors or very few).

        What I do, and recommend, is to test the pages with the most popular browsers to see if everything is working as expected. If possible test them also in different OSs.

        Carlos
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[21157].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Pete Janelle
          Originally Posted by CMartin View Post

          So, don't worry... and don't waste much time with W3 validation - I rarely use them, and I suspect Google and other SEs don't give any importance to the W3 validation (or their pages would have no errors or very few).

          What I do, and recommend, is to test the pages with the most popular browsers to see if everything is working as expected. If possible test them also in different OSs.
          I'd have to agree for the most part. It's funny how the major players don't follow the rules yet everyone else is expected to. Generally, the focus should be on cross-browser compatibility, with validation a secondary concern.

          That said, I have to disagree on not worrying about validation. Not coding valid HTML/XHTML (etc...) just feeds the non-standardization that is currently going on, especially with browsers. In a perfect world, all code would validate and a non-standard browser would fail miserably.

          There are also considerations like the type of client you're designing for. I do some contract work on state government sites that generally have to comply with accessibility rules and must validate. So in some cases, validation takes priority.

          Now let me get back to work on non-validating WordPress blogs.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[21507].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ric Raftis
    As already stated above, Google itself doesn't validate. I used to be quite pedantic about validation, but am becoming less so these days as the vast majority of sites online don't validate at all.

    If you only have two errors, you are really doing quite well, particularly when you've identified them.

    What DTD are you using? If "strict", then dropping back to transitional may resolve your problems.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[22068].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author CMartin
      Originally Posted by Pete Janelle View Post

      That said, I have to disagree on not worrying about validation. Not coding valid HTML/XHTML (etc...) just feeds the non-standardization that is currently going on, especially with browsers.
      My post was mainly focused to answer Barbara's concerns about SEs due to W3 validation errors and I would never suggest her to not use valid (X)HTML code.

      I agree with you that for some specific cases where validation takes priority, you should use W3 Validator and correct any errors/warnings you find.
      But for most of the web sites, that kind of validation is not necessary - any page that don't have a "type" attribute for a "script" or "style" element, or uses "<font...><p>text</p><p>text</p></font>" simple fails the W3 validation. Should people worry with that just because of the SEs? No! For the casual user that creates some web pages those kind of errors have no importance regarding the SEs. Off course that if you are a web developer, you shouldn't make such mistakes... but sometimes I do [shame on me].

      Now let me get back to work on non-validating WordPress blogs.
      Good luck

      Carlos
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[22329].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Pete Janelle
        I looked further into validation errors that come up on a lot of pages and even an extra space can trigger an error. For example, <div > throws an error. It works, but it isn't "valid." Talk about sensitive! So now, I'm faced with a lot of minor errors. Will I go fix them? Probably not. Has it affected the site's PR? Probably not.


        Thanks for the luck. I'll need it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[22354].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Barbara Eyre
          Wow! Thank you to everyone who have answered. You have certainly eased my mind.

          I always figured that a clean coded site will load faster and have other benefits over a site with a bunch of code errors. I guess that isn't necessarily the case.

          And an FYI, I use transitional ... seemed to be the easiest for me to code in, as I am still more of a lower-end intermediate when it comes to website designing. Have loads more to learn.

          Sincerely, thank you to each of you. See ... I learned something new yet again!
          Signature
          Phoenix Rising Web Services | Fibromyalgia Information
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[30460].message }}

Trending Topics