September 9, 2006 in Feedback
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:
I'd love to see XHTML 1.1 validation with a complete css layout. That'd be simply wonderful and much easier to update.
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.
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 think it is important, making pages which have errors ain't good. :)
IPB 2.2 is valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional :)
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:
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?
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
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.
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Started February 26
Started March 13, 2023
Started 1 hour ago