New website - testing please

[Greason Wolfe]

These errors are minor mistakes that can be put to right easy enough. If you need any help, drop me a line torstan. This is one of my specialties.

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.

GW

[Turgenev]

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.

[Greason Wolfe]

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.

No argument from me on that count. More often than not, that is exactly the case with my code as well. One misidentified ID, one set of transposed letters, an "=" instead of a ":" and you end up with a dozen errors, but that one little fix is all it takes. The validator at w3c is my friend and savior, oh yes it is.

Still, being that it is your area of expertise and my area of hobby, I'll defer to you when it comes to helping Torstan tweak out his sight. Better to get it right from someone more in the know than someone who might just be guessing.

GW