Web Resources - (X)HTML, CSS, JavaScript, etc.

The quotes supplied below are from the sites themselves; unquoted portions are my own comments. The numbers are real, but the comments and judgment calls were made with a cursory examination.

The W3C Markup Validation Service: "W3C's easy-to-use HTML validation service, based on an SGML parser. ... a free service that checks documents like HTML and XHTML for conformance to W3C Recommendations and other standards ..."
What other validators are there?: HTML, CSS, links.
www.htmlhelp.com/tools/csscheck/: "CSSCheck is primarily a CSS1 checker. Many CSS2 properties are supported, but new CSS2 selectors will generate errors." You may want to disable "warning" before checking; it produces messages about IE3! Though, since my code was clean, I might not have gotten more useful messages
www.w3.org/QA/Tips/unordered-lists: provides the W3C argument for using lists for menus and shows ways to do it. The references at the bottom lead to a plethora of implementation examples. They also have a growing list of other tips.
www.positioniseverything.net/: "we built this site to explain some obtuse CSS bugs in modern browsers, provide demo examples of interesting CSS behaviors, and show how to 'make it work' without using tables for layout purposes." And it supplies and references many CSS resources.
www.csszengarden.com/: includes a choice of style sheets to apply to the same HTML to produce different layouts and graphics as a demo of CSS power and flexibility.
css-discuss.incutio.com/: extensive (sometimes exhausting) discussion of CSS issues.
www.alistapart.com/: many web subjects.
www.meyerweb.com/: many web subjects.
p2p.wrox.com/: peer-to-peer discussion forums.
www.quirksmode.org/: CSS and JavaScript as pertains to browser incompatibilities.
www.anybrowser.com/: "Your Source for Browser Compatibility Verification"
www.slackerhtml.com/: "For the developer creating or maintaining HTML or Flash web designs ..."
www.dhtmlcentral.com/: Javascript, Javascript, Javascript.
javascript.internet.com/: (Seems to be affiliated with Microsoft.)
www.siteexperts.com/: "your destination for web-development discussions and resources."
webdesign.about.com/: "learn the basics of Web design, HTML, XML, and Web development."
www.sitepoint.com/: "New Articles, Fresh Thinking for Web Developers and Designers"

R. W. Crowl
Posted 2005-06-15

I've added the table below to help you determine the usefulness of any of the above sites for your needs. C3.org is XHTML 1.0 strict and validates (and doesn't use JavaScript). I also tested sites which validate for CSS validation and noted any failures.

DOCTYPE - their assertion to standards compliance (if any).
Validate - results of submitting the listed page to the W3C Markup Validation Service.
CSS - High, medium, low, (my judgment) or none on the quality and quantity of CSS used.
<font> - Number (sometimes estimated) of <font> tags used--the easiest thing to get rid of and the clearest benefit of CSS.
<table> - Number of <table> tags used--bad for accessibility; use positioning. More than five means they don't even know how to use tables and modern HTML programming (my judgment).

Site	DOCTYPE	Validate	CSS	<font>	<table>
htmlhelp.com/tools/csscheck/	HTML 4.0	HTML 4.0 Strict	Medium	0	0
positioniseverything.net/	XHTML 1.0 Strict	Yes	High	0	0
csszengarden.com/	XHTML 1.0 Strict	Yes	High¹	0	0
css-discuss.incutio.com/	XHTML 1.0 Strict	6 errors²	Medium	0	0
alistapart.com/	XHTML 1.0 Transitional	Yes	High³	0	0
meyerweb.com/	HTML 4.01 Transitional	5 errors⁴	High	0	0
p2p.wrox.com/	None	233 errors	Low	~80	18⁵
quirksmode.org/	None	6 errors	High	0	1⁵
anybrowser.com/	HTML 4.0 Transitional	34 errors	None	~120	26
slackerhtml.com/	HTML 4.01 Transitional	138 errors	Low⁶	0	22
dhtmlcentral.com/	None	45 errors	Low⁶	0	3
javascript.internet.com/	None	213 errors	Medium	66	32
siteexperts.com/	None	167 errors	Low	~90	9
webdesign.about.com/	HTML 4.01 Transitional	84 errors	High⁷	0	4
sitepoint.com/	XHTML 1.0 Strict	Yes	High	0	2⁸

Some of the CSS implementations don't use resizable type (accessibility).
All related to the same problem.
Two errors plus many warnings of the same technique which is a hack to adjust for browser shortcomings.
Same error repeated.
One table is a real table, not for layout.
But it eliminates all <font> tags (non-resizable).
But it's unformatted (machine generated), so it's impossible to read. I suspect that it's over-specified or largely unused, since it seems to be a stylesheet for the larger site.
Both tables are real tables, not for layout.