why do I get different validated output in w3c validator?

[ksanjanadevi]

Here is my link
http : // 173 dot 45 dot 229 dot 122 / phpBB3 / (without spaces)

I give this url and check for validation I get sum 41 errors. - This is one way
I do View Source and check for validation I get 103 errors - This is another way

Why do I get different results like this? Am using a PHPBB3 thats a CMS kind application where 80% would be driven by default phpbb3 itself 20% is my work....

what to do for this kind of site???? am depressed

Any solutions?

[Arbitrator]

Originally Posted by ksanjanadevi

I give this url and check for validation I get sum 41 errors. - This is one way
I do View Source and check for validation I get 103 errors - This is another way

You're probably using two different validators. They'll vary in quality and some will catch errors that technically aren't validation (via a DTD) errors, but still errors according to the spec nevertheless. Plus, be sure not to confuse warnings with errors.

Originally Posted by ksanjanadevi

what to do for this kind of site???? am depressed

You either need to write your own bulletin board from the ground up, find one that does validate, or live with the errors. Unfortunately, you'll find that a lot of prepackaged software is written using broken code. Forum software, in particular, all seems to use tables for layout.

[clnm]

The following forums should validate and have no tables ::

Simple Machines Forum
http://www.simplemachines.org/

Vanilla
http://vanillaforums.org/

PunBB
http://punbb.informer.com/

[MattF]

Originally Posted by Arbitrator

Unfortunately, you'll find that a lot of prepackaged software is written using broken code. Forum software, in particular, all seems to use tables for layout.

The use of tables doesn't infer broken/invalid code however.

[Arbitrator]

Originally Posted by clnm

Simple Machines Forum
http://www.simplemachines.org/

Vanilla
http://vanillaforums.org/

PunBB
http://punbb.informer.com/

Interesting. I went to all of these sites. The "Community" tab of the first leads to an invalid, table-based forum. The "Community" tab of the second leads to a tableless forum, but the code is still invalid. The last one is the only one that I could get to pass validation and was also tableless.

Originally Posted by MattF

The use of tables doesn't infer broken/invalid code however.

Right that it doesn't necessarily infer invalid code; I probably should have mentioned that. I don't think I've ever seen one that was either valid or semantically accurate though.