HTML check: The “border” attribute is obsolete. Consider specifying “img { border: 0; }” in CSS instead.

CSS: “border”: “undefined” is not a “color” value.

This W3C Validator issue indicates that the value assigned to the CSS border property is invalid. The border property in CSS is used to specify the width, style, and color of an element’s border, and these values must be appropriately defined.

To resolve this issue, make sure you define the border property using valid values for border width, border style, and border color. Below is the correct syntax for setting a border:

selector {
  border: 1px solid black; /* width, style, color */
}

If you inadvertently set the border property to an incorrect or undefined value, such as undefined, it will trigger this validation issue.

Incorrect Example:

<div style="border: undefined;"></div> <!-- This will cause a validation error -->

Correct Example:

To correct this, replace undefined with a valid CSS border definition. For example:

<div style="border: 1px solid black;"></div>

Breakdown:

1px is the border width.
solid is the border style.
black is the border color.

More Examples:

Here are a few more valid examples with different border styles:

Dotted border:

<div style="border: 2px dotted red;"></div>

Dashed border:

<div style="border: 3px dashed blue;"></div>

Double border:

<div style="border: 4px double green;"></div>

Additionally, you can define border properties separately:

selector {
  border-width: 1px;
  border-style: solid;
  border-color: black;
}

Summary:

Ensure your border property has valid width, style, and color values. Avoid using placeholders like undefined in your CSS properties. This will resolve the W3C Validator issue and render your border as expected in your HTML document.

An “img” element must have an “alt” attribute, except under certain conditions. For details, consult guidance on providing text alternatives for images.

alt
img

<img> tags, used to include images on a document, require an alt attribute to describe the contents of the image. This is essential for users that cannot see the image (like screen reader users), or as an alternate text when the image cannot be displayed. Example:

<img src="photo.jpg" alt="Person holding a cat" />

An “img” element which has an “alt” attribute whose value is the empty string must not have a “role” attribute.

Attribute “height” not allowed on element “table” at this point.

Bad start tag in “img” in “noscript” in “head”.

A start tag for <img> has been found inside a <noscript> section within the <head>, where it’s not allowed. Consider moving it to the <body> section.

The HTML <noscript> element defines a section of HTML to be inserted if a script type on the page is unsupported or if scripting is currently turned off in the browser.

When JavaScript is disabled, the content inside <noscript> will be used instead, so this content must fit within its parent section. As an <img> tag is not allowed inside <head>, this will raise an issue. Instead, consider moving the <noscript> part to the <body> section.

This issue is often related to 3rd party tracking pixels like the Facebook or LinkedIn conversion tracking pixels. For example, the Facebook pixel instructions tell you to insert it like this:

<html>
  <head>
    <script>
       ...some script...
    </script>
    <noscript>
       <img src="..." />
     </noscript>
  </head>
  <body>
     ...
  </body>
</html>

Instead, consider moving the <noscript> part inside the <body>, where the <img> makes sense to be inserted:

<html>
  <head>
    <script>
       ...some script...
    </script>
  </head>
  <body>
     ...
     <noscript>
       <img src="..." />
     </noscript>
  </body>
</html>

Bad value “100%” for attribute “height” on element “img”: Expected a digit but saw “%” instead.

img
height

The W3C HTML Validator issue you encountered indicates that the value of the height attribute for an <img> element is set to “100%”, which is not allowed in HTML. The height attribute must be a specific digit that represents the height in pixels (e.g., “150”), rather than a percentage or any other unit.

How to Fix the Issue

To resolve this issue, you need to specify a numeric value for the height attribute instead. If you want the image to occupy a certain percentage of the container, use CSS instead of the height attribute.

Example of Incorrect HTML

Here is an example that causes the validation issue:

<img src="image.jpg" height="100%" alt="Example Image">

Corrected HTML Using Pixel Values

To correct the issue, replace the percentage with a pixel value:

<img src="image.jpg" height="200" alt="Example Image">

Alternative: Using CSS for Responsive Design

If you want the image to scale responsively and occupy 100% of the width of its container, consider using CSS:

<style>
  .responsive-img {
      width: 100%;
      height: auto; /* Maintains aspect ratio */
  }
</style>

<img src="image.jpg" class="responsive-img" alt="Example Image">

Summary

Do not use percentage values for the height attribute of <img> tags.
Use pixel values for fixed dimensions.
For responsive design, use CSS to set the dimensions instead.

Bad value “auto” for attribute “sizes” on element “img”: Bad CSS number token: Expected a minus sign or a digit but saw “a” instead at “auto”.

The sizes attribute specifies the size of the image when it is displayed on different devices.

The error message is saying that the value auto is not a valid value for the sizes attribute.

To fix this issue, you need to replace the value auto with a valid size. You can use a width descriptor or a media query to specify the size for different device widths.

Here’s an example of using a width descriptor:

<img src="example.jpg" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 50vw" />

This example sets the size of the image to 100% of the viewport width when the device width is less than or equal to 600px, and 50% of the viewport width for larger device widths.

Alternatively, you can remove the sizes attribute altogether and let the browser decide the best size for the image based on the viewport size.