Quote Originally Posted by Greason Wolfe View Post
Heh. I figured they were probably just typing errors. I'm notorious for doing things like that in the process of writing mark-up and css and then pull my hair out trying to find them. Certainly not my specialty, though, so I'm glad there's someone here that can help our man Torstan out with these things better than I'd be able to.
The other thing to take into account with validation is errors often have a cascading effect. It might say there are 11 errors, but when you go into the code and fix a couple mistakes at the top of the code and then re-validate, it can then pass.

I've done typos in my code in the past and I've scratched my head trying to figure out why a site isn't validating only to look and see that I transposed a couple letters somewhere in the code (for example, typing ahref instead of a href). The http://validator.w3.org/ site is invaluable as a resource.

The top two reasons why a validated site is a good idea are:
* It means the code is correct and will allow better browser cross-platform capability (it will work on more than one type of browser). Sites dedicated to just one type of browser could potentially ignore/alienate future viewers/clients.
* A site will validated code will have an edge against a site with errors in the search engine game. New sites can take a little while to get listed in Google (the regular estimates are anywhere between 3 - 8 months depending on how competitive the topic is). So having a well written site will get you listed quicker and often at higher listings than a non-validated site. Course there are many variables involved in this process so being weak in one area may balance out with a stronger showing in another area.