Guest Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 currently pages don't validate at all, eg: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%...;doctype=Inline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millar Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBERHOST.NET Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange_Will Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 I agree with this, mainly because the blogs are messed up in firefox! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antony Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 I think this'll happen for IPB 3.0, as a skin overhaul is planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Phantom Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZuCruTrooper2 Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I'd love to see XHTML 1.1 validation with a complete css layout. That'd be simply wonderful and much easier to update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomi Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rikki Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princetontiger Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Google isn't W3C valid, pretty interesting considering people who use it push W3C so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IAIHMB Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antony Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rοb Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 IPB 2.2 is valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional :)Every page, infact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBERHOST.NET Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBERHOST.NET Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange_Will Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antony Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBERHOST.NET Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange_Will Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBERHOST.NET Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekerazha Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rοb Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 IPB 2.2 is valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional :)Every page, infact.Excellent :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.