Validate HTML

[PaulGrimshaw]

I did a search and couldnt see this in the wishlist.

Could we please make actinic html valid. It is my understanding that it is the non standard <ACTINIC> type tags that are causing problems. I have an idea, but not sure if this would work.

1. All actinic tags are put within special comments. e.g.

<!--*<Actinic:BASEHREF value="http://www.madmash.com/" FORCED=0 />*-->

2. You update the scripts so that when it parses the html, it looks for the special comments around the tags rather than just the tags.

3. You update the compact html code so that if it sees the special comment tag "<!--*" it doesnt compact that comment.


Discuss.

Thanks,
Paul.

[gabrielcrowe]

Discuss?

I prefer the term: 'Hyper Evaluate'

Tried it. many moons ago. and my problem was the html compaction. the scripts have many many references to the offending handles. usually using uber leet regex.

my reasoning was, that however much I quested for standards compliance, we were still doing well in google, so, whats the point?

3. You update the compact html code so that if it sees the special comment tag "<!--*" it doesnt compact that comment.

this is the only part i'd need actinic to change to allow this to happen, the rest is user editable.


OR, simply tidy up your own code and leave compaction off.

[PaulGrimshaw]

Hyper Evaluate

lol.

this is the only part i'd need actinic to change to allow this to happen, the rest is user editable.

you never know, we shall see what chris says...

...maybe for version 10 then..

Paul.

[gabrielcrowe]

Version 10? thats just given me an idea!

[fergusw]

I've always wondered why Actinic haven't utilised/hijacked existing HTML META information tags;
e.g. as on W3.org

<BASE href="http://www.domain.co.uk/acatalog/">

Or even "borrowing" some other META properties and attributes:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.4.4
(even though this may not be 100% semantically correct)

Just a thought.....

[cdicken]

Thanks for the input chaps. I've passed the details on to the technical team.

[gabrielcrowe]

well, i dont actually see anything wrong with using comments.

<!-- act_base:"http://www.site.com" -->
<!-- act_xml:"xml regex for cart" -->
<!-- act_switch:"some random switch=true" -->

this way, you'd have only comments in the final html render, and the compact parser could be coded to ignore them selectively.

[Orchid]

I've been aware for some time now that it is impossible to make an Actinic site pass the W3s html validation because of proprietary tags, but thought this a minor issue.

However I've just become aware that this breakes googles Site-Related-Keywords tool.

To begin with the tool told me that there wasn't enough text on the page to find keywords - this I knew to be wrong.

I worked out the problem by creating a copy of a page and stripping out the proprietary tags and re-testing. The tool now worked.

This is more important than simply not being able to use a useful tool. Google uses the same algorithm to work out the Quality score of the adverts landing page - and a good quality score means that adverts are favourably placed at a lower bid price, this will be costing merchants money.

Troubleshooting Google's Quality Score

- So I would also like to ask please can v9 be standards complient with proprietary tags presented as comments?

[Orchid]

Hi gabrielcrowe,

Are you saying that if we leave the code un-compacted we can wrap the proprietary tags in comments and Actinic won't throw it's teddy's out the pram?