Re: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing

and, albeit non-perlishly, not as an alternative to the above suggestions, but as a step beyond, I would strongly that you test at least some of your html against the w3c validator http://validator.w3.org/. If you use css (recommended), w3c also offers a reasonably trustworthy validator for that.

html is and css can be made sufficiently english-like that it's fairly easy to scan for correctness (certainly it's easier for me than debugging my sorry excuses for scripts). Your creepie-crawlies hide chiefly in the various (and disparate) non-standard performances by browsers. However, a little time invested (say, a few hours) in learning these will let you write html and css that perform reasonably well across (BIG caveat) reasonably current (say, v5 and up in the windoze world) browsers.

Comment on Re: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing by wazoox (Prior) on Jul 23, 2005 at 14:49 UTC
Better than that, there's HTML-Tidy. It's basically the same as the w3c validator, but much faster, and offline : you don't have to make your file accessible to the whole net :) It even can correct most common mistakes (unclosed tags, deprecated tags, unencoded entities, bad encoding...) Get it there : HTML Tidy project	[reply]
Re^3: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing by adrianh (Chancellor) on Jul 24, 2005 at 11:14 UTC
Better than that, there's HTML-Tidy. It's basically the same as the w3c validator, While tidy is certainly a useful app it is nothing like the W3C validator. It doesn't do verification against doctypes, doesn't recognise use of meta tags to set character encoding, etc.	[reply]
Re^4: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing by wazoox (Prior) on Jul 24, 2005 at 11:38 UTC
Hum, are we talking about the same app? Mine verify doctypes and even convert from a doctype to another (for instance from html 4.01 transitional to strict, or to xhtml 1.0 strict, etc). It also corrects character encodings IIRC.	[reply]
Re^5: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing by adrianh (Chancellor) on Jul 24, 2005 at 15:56 UTC
Re^6: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing by wazoox (Prior) on Jul 24, 2005 at 17:12 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^3: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing by ww (Archbishop) on Jul 25, 2005 at 13:18 UTC
adrianh is completely correct; tidy (HTML) is an excellent tool for partial cleanup of bad (ie, non-w3c compliant) html and for pretty-fying code to make it easier to read when another author (or one of the less sensible WYSIWYG) has obfuscated the code... but it is NOT a validator.	[reply]
Re^2: Wanted, more simple tutorials on testing by willyyam (Priest) on Jul 25, 2005 at 12:25 UTC
It isn't a "non-Perlish" suggestion. The W3C validator is written in Perl, last I looked.	[reply]


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks