Validation aspects for "A Friend Visits - October 2018":
Validator: W3C (Nu Html Checker)
HTML validates except for 2 warnings and 4 errors all having to do with
rel=”noopener noreferrer”. The code is used in instances of
target=”_blank” that opens a new tab. It is a security fix to prevent malicious links from taking control over a newly opened tab. This security measure is valid from what I've read online by others with more knowledge of it.
CSS validates. No warnings, no errors.
re: HTML, CSS, and other Code
Brother, can you spare a validation?
When it comes to code validation of a webpage, and in this instance the validation done by the W3C CSS Validation Service, I am in favor of it because years ago when code standards varied from browser to browser it was laborious to adjust everything - when you could - so the page would look at least presentable. Nowadays you can make the code as validated as possible once and it will generally do the job across browsers.
But not everything is rainbows and unicorns in the land of W3C, many are the times when I've googled a question about something that didn't validate even though it seemed to work. The responses from various websites would help but there were some who noted that W3C was not always correct in pointing out errors simply because it had not updated to account for particular items. Some of them even regarded W3C 'validation' as almost having some type of proprietary/political motivation. For the record, I have no political regard about W3C. :-)
For example, all the pages in Sitesetis, both HTML and CSS, validate but solely in regard to the code of the page. In other words, I upload the code to the validator and work from there. But if I validate via the URL of 'sitesetis.com' then elements other than the code on the page are put through the process. What usually appears then are many 'errors' and 'warnings'.
Then, the 'warnings' from the validator come in at a whopping 399. Needless to say, for someone starting out learning proper code that alert could be cause for a wide-eyed catatonia. But I take it with a 'pixel' of salt, the reason being that 398 of those warnings are for 'unknown vendor extensions' which are proprietary code and thus the validator will regard it as somehow wrong. By the way, if you ever need to use the W3C validator, click on 'More Options' then in 'Warnings' choose 'Most important'. That effectively brought the aforementioned number of warnings in my validation to zero
Comments and suggestions re code are welcomed.