currently pages don't validate at all, eg: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%...;doctype=Inline

I would definately like to see this in future versions of IPB.

It is said that IPB v3 Will have a major skin update's so that would be a great time to add this compliancy.

+ 1.

This has been suggested many times already. It won't be long until this happens, so meanwhile you'll have non-validating pages like 90% of the web, lol.

I agree with this, mainly because the blogs are messed up in firefox! :(

I think this'll happen for IPB 3.0, as a skin overhaul is planned.

honostly I think ipb 3.0 is too late to have w3c compliance, if ips wants to see itself as a serious web development firm I feel it should be compliant with the w3c standard rather sooner than later... :unsure:

honostly I think ipb 3.0 is too late to have w3c compliance, if ips wants to see itself as a serious web development firm I feel it should be compliant with the w3c standard rather sooner than later... :unsure:

I would rather them add it, when they are able to upgrade the skin system, rather then break a ton of skins after saying it wouldn't happen.

But lets see what happens in IPB 2.2.x before we talk about IPB 3.0.x

I'd love to see XHTML 1.1 validation with a complete css layout. That'd be simply wonderful and much easier to update.

I'd love to see XHTML 1.1 validation with a complete css layout. That'd be simply wonderful and much easier to update.

+1 :)

honostly I think ipb 3.0 is too late to have w3c compliance, if ips wants to see itself as a serious web development firm I feel it should be compliant with the w3c standard rather sooner than later... :unsure:

While I'm not saying it isn't important, 99% of IPB users couldn't care less whether it validates or not, as long as it works on the vast majority of browsers - which it does. I think if we were to spend the large amount of time necessary to make the current skin fully compliant, I think most people would wound up getting annoyed that we aren't spending time on more useful additions.

Google isn't W3C valid, pretty interesting considering people who use it push W3C so much

Rikki: Isn't that what Keith is for? I would imagine that Brandon and Matt can handle the development of Invision Power Board on their own.

It isn't urgent, but it is something that should be on the long term todo list. :)

What I'd be more concerned about is removing various pieces of hardcoded HTML and using more semantic HTML, but please for 3.0 rather than 2.2.

It isn't urgent, but it is something that should be on the long term todo list. :)

What I'd be more concerned about is removing various pieces of hardcoded HTML and using more semantic HTML, but please for 3.0 rather than 2.2.

What he said ^^^ :P

IPB 2.2 is valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional :)

Every page, infact.

While I'm not saying it isn't important, 99% of IPB users couldn't care less whether it validates or not, as long as it works on the vast majority of browsers - which it does. I think if we were to spend the large amount of time necessary to make the current skin fully compliant, I think most people would wound up getting annoyed that we aren't spending time on more useful additions.

^ I'd second that.

I think it is important, making pages which have errors ain't good. :)

IPB 2.2 is valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional :)

Every

page, infact.

that's great to hear. :thumbsup:

I think it is important, making pages which have errors ain't good. :)

Until the majority of 'net surfers switch to fully compliant browsers, what difference does it make?

Though I do think that making the primary skin compatable with firefox is a major thing (blogs have major issues with the skin in firefox, streching incorrectly on comments)

Until the majority of 'net surfers switch to fully compliant browsers, what difference does it make?

Until the majority of web designers switch to fully compliant pages, what difference does it make? :lol:

Until the majority of web designers switch to fully compliant pages, what difference does it make? :lol:

I design fully compliant pages, and the majority of my enlightened pals on codingforums.com do the same, but I do so for my own reasons. Anyway, your glib comment doesn't make a lot of sense, Antony. Let's say that all designers switched to coding fully compliant pages--how would that force the people coming to the sites to switch to compliant browsers? If the majority of browsers are rendering compliant code improperly, I just don't see the rush for everyone to update their code. Over the next couple of years there will be a lot more conformance, but this isn't going to happen over night. Microsoft is finally doing something, but it falls way short of the mark, yet it's a step in the right direction. In any case, I'm all for seeing forum pages validate, I just don't see a reason to make a mad rush to do it all at once.

Let's say that all designers switched to coding fully compliant pages--how would that force the people coming to the sites to switch to compliant browsers?

Isn't Opera the ONLY fully compliant browser?

Isn't Opera the ONLY fully compliant browser?

Opera 9.x is the only browser that I know of that can fully pass ACID TEST 2 so I'd say that makes it the most compliant browser of the bunch. If it had the extensibility of Firefox, I'd use it for more than testing pages.

Opera 9.x is the only browser that I know of that can fully pass

ACID TEST 2

so I'd say that makes it the most compliant browser of the bunch. If it had the extensibility of Firefox, I'd use it for more than testing pages.

Also Safari and Konqueror.

I'd love to see XHTML 1.1 validation with a complete css layout. That'd be simply wonderful and much easier to update.

XHTML 1.1 doctype isn't supported by Internet Explorer 6 (it goes "quirks mode") and IE6 is the most common browser, so it isn't a very good idea... XHTML 1.0 Strict would be a better choice. "Complete CSS layout" (table less?) is also a bad idea because forum rows are tabular data, so tables are the correct choice.

IPB 2.2 is valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional :)

Every

page, infact.

Excellent :thumbsup: