special characters must be escaped - but what does that mean exactly?

[r_tist]

Hi,

I am working in codeview. The text I am formatting happens to be scientific info that includes things like this:  (incidence <2%) are nausea,......

OK, so the '<' causes me to get the error message: special characters must be escaped, and so that text won't render on the page properly.

What do I need to do for it to view this as readable text and not code?

Does escape mean backslash? - taking a guess... so it would be /<2% in my code?

Thank you.

[Jon Fritz]

If you're using < and > in equations within html text, use the html entities &lt; and &gt; in their place.

Using < and > in html code is specifically for starting and ending tags. If you type either from within Design View, DW will replace them automatically with their entity code. Code View doesn't understand that though and thinks you're using them intentionally, then gets confused when it doesn't see them being used for tags.

[r_tist]

I found this, and it worked great - gives you the HTML:

Unicode® character table

[Jon Fritz · Accepted solution]

Yep, there are a few different codes you can use to make greater-than and less-than symbols in your text.

&gt; and &lt; are the shortest, and what Design View will write into your code automatically.

[Chuck M]

In DW 2019, in split view, I show "must be escaped" errors for the character "<" when it's used in part of a standard tag. Can I tell DW to ignore it? Or do I tell myself to ignore it? An example:

       <td style="padding: 24px 23px 4px 0;">

       <img src="images/authsuppprov62.gif" alt="HP logo" border="0" width="73" height="120" </a></td>

DW's complaint seems to be about the "<" in <img

[osgood_]

That looks to be because your image tag is badly formatted, it currently doesnt have the closing > tag and in the context shown you have a redundant </a> closing anchor tag

[Jon Fritz]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Chuck+M  wrote

In DW 2019, in split view, I show "must be escaped" errors for the character "<" when it's used in part of a standard tag. Can I tell DW to ignore it? Or do I tell myself to ignore it? ...

You should pretty much never ignore that warning. It means you have a code error in your html and code errors can lead, pretty quickly, to pages that don't function as expected.

As Osgood points out, you have a malformed <img> tag and a stray ending </a>. Both should be repaired.

[Chuck M]

I am happy and sad that I brought the problem here. I've used your answers to fix the code on this page. And now have a dozen or 3 dozen other pages to do similar. Thanks to both of you.

I also am a partial user of the W3C validation offered in Dreamweaver. I'm thinking the yellow errors are more serious. Right? But some of the others seem functionally significant too. I take care of those. But I must admit that the errors that point out that pieces of code are obsolete I pass over. Neither the website nor yours truly are expected to last forever.

A practitioner named Flavio Copes today offered a new free CSS Handbook. 36 pages when I printed it out. I like what I've seen. That will be my lunch reading. And my reading for a rather long time afterwards... If I succeed with it, not a given, there will be fewer obsolete errors in my pages.

Chuck M

[osgood_]

I dont take too much notice of validation to be honest, you should try to become familiar with your code and code patterns, you'll spot the errors as you progress. Usually every editor has some rudamentary validation system that can give you some guidance as you progress. Become an efficient coder and l guarantee you wont produce many errors.

Today we have popular front end javascript workflows using methods which will fail w3c validation rules. The validator is light years behind as are most inbuilt editor validation systems when it comes to what is acceptable coding practice. The days when nearly every developer thought validation was a significant factor in testing their code have long disappeared. Now its all about becoming familiar with your code and that code which the validators currently do not recognise as being acceptable.

Practice, practice and practice, you wont go far wrong once you see the patterns.

[Nancy OShea]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Chuck+M  wrote

I'm thinking the yellow errors are more serious. Right? But some of the others seem functionally significant too. I take care of those. But I must admit that the errors that point out that pieces of code are obsolete I pass over.

Yellow =  warning.  Pink = error.

We don't use tables for layouts anymore.   That could be part of your problem.  But always remember that obsolete code is obsolete.  The browsers are under no obligation to support it.  And eventually, it won't work at all.

A well-built website should last 5 years or more. 

[Chuck M]

What you say is true enough.

Though I claim an exception for this project and for myself.

The site is between 8 and 12 years old. It hasn't been touched for any editing for 8 years. And it has served my friend's small business loyally for all 96 months. He doesn't intend to use it for the next 5 years. He wants it to show current content -- and last for a year or two.

When I worked on reworking the site from another purpose 8 years ago, I was trying to be a web developer. I was making the site function largely through trial & error, more that I was getting it built right. Shortly after the site went live, I totally gave up web intentions and/or pretensions. Went back to graphic design.

Now he has told me that his business has changed, and chunks of the content have to be changed. The design and style should remain unchanged -- just make it 2019 accurate. He asked that I come out of web retirement and do the changes. We informally have a budget in mind, about 20-25% of normal charges.

When I got into the content revisions, I realized (and told him) how shoddy the job was that I produced 8 years ago. Two-thirds of my time now has gone into fixing mistakes and omissions. They are not in the budget, but I do not wish to simply repeat my "sins" of 8 years ago. So I contribute the time. To make the site better -- perfection isn't on the table. Reworking pages to avoid obsolete usages isn't on the table. I'll gamble they will work for another year or so.

I am about to delve into a brand new ref work by Flavio Copes he calls The CSS Handbook. It prints at 36 pages and has tons of stuff I can use if I am able to learn. We'll see. If my speed & competency improve, I will venture to do a little more with the site. But not at the cost of being pragmatic.

Chuck M