W3C validator does not like xthumbnail-orig-image

Hi!

I am trying to validate a page with W3C.
It does not like the xthumbnail-orig-image command.

Is there a way to have a thumbnail of an image and still be W3C Complaint?

 <p align="center">
          <a href="images/VTSOutside.JPG">
          <img border="2" src="VTSOutside_small.JPG" align="middle" alt="" xthumbnail-orig-image="images/VTSOutside.JPG" width="100" height="60"></a></p>
       
TrueBlueAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
seanpowellConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Yes, it is FP, but removing it is not an option as it will regenerate every time you save the page.

The image will display in all browsers because of the additional standard source code, so validating in this case has nothing to do with acessibility.  If you're validating so your code is pure, than you have to stop using FP. If you're validating for another reason, than you have to decide between the ease of using FP, or coding by hand and being aware of what's going on behind the scenes.

Sean
0
 
dfu23Connect With a Mentor Commented:
I think this is a FrontPage attibute ... remove it ... see what happens :)
0
 
TrueBlueAuthor Commented:
Hi Sean!

I believe I removed most of the FP from this page http://www.victoriastreasureshop.com

Is there any problem with doing the thumbnail the way I did it on this page?

Thank you in advance.
0
 
PaulPositionConnect With a Mentor Commented:
(this comment should NOT be considered for pointsas it offers no solution (but a bit of poorman's wisdom) ..) :
W3C validator is way overrated. I mean, the way it is used is overrated.

Not many people care if your site is (or is not) valid (x)html. The inclusion of a 'W3C valid' image at the bottom is a nice thing for university projects and websites that talk of web devlopment (so they could pass the message around), but on a business, hobby or information site they don't really have their place.

What the validator is REALLY good at, though, is troubleshooting problem with your code. Inconsistencies and such are often easily spotted after a run through the validator. It will help you build better sites.

Now, when there's this little irritant that makes it so it *doesn't* validate anymore, of course you need to think a bit. Is there any other solution? Would it be more practical or less so? Is my current solution going to cause accessibility problems I don't want to see?  --  If there's no such problem, try commenting out the offending piece of code and send it back to validator. Is it valid? If yes, save yourself some frustration !
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.