IPB isn't W3C valid!

[lorenzone92__]

IPB isn't W3C valid! :whistle:
Will do you fix this problem in the final release? :unsure:

[Will L.]

that is odd it is when I validate it


odd

[Quillz]

I'm sure that the final release of IP.Board 2.2 will be compliant with W3C standards.

[princetontiger]

Google's homepage isn't W3C valid. I'd much rather have a product that works than wasted time spent on W3C validation. It is important, but not super important.

[Will L.]

I'm sure that the final release of IP.Board 2.2 will be compliant with W3C standards.

Invision Power Board 2.2.0 RC 3's skins are VALID

I have tested this numerous times and it validates

[Volvospeed]

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%...wtopic%3D229969

[.Ryan]

<_< Thats XHTML... are we talking HTML though? And who the heck cares... it displays fine for me. Big deal its W3C...

[Luke]

There are actually a few errors there that should be fixed, like:

&amp;&autocom= (double amp's)

[Matt]

But really, in terms of practical usage, the skin is W3C compliant.

Obviously, you're never going to get 100% compliance when users can add their own signatures and posts to a page's content.

[Mark]

Take a look at my siggy

[Michael]

Take a look at my siggy

Yes, that's true. But which IPB version are we on right now?

[princetontiger]

Some of the W3C validation stuff deals with those darn query tags

[bfarber]

A base install of IPB 2.2 with nothing added will validate. Beyond that, it's hard to control user-submitted content. ;)

This forum has components, and other custom links and such...it likely won't validate, and I would rather spend time working on IPB than a "I validated" box at the bottom of the page which won't change anything.

[Guest]

I searched google for a 2.2 test board and indeed it validates: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%...;doctype=Inline

great :thumbsup:

[Boozer]

validate for what? xhtml 1.0 complicate or regular html?

their "standards" change al lthe time anyways. Why not worry about making a pretty site and script and not worry about the ever changing "standards".

BTW almost all mysites are xhtml 1.0 transitional compliant, so im not just hating. I just miss the days of making sites that worked no matter of the code.

I only make sure my sites are valid to shut others up.
If i had a site that i just wanted to look good, i'd use simple html if i had to :P 1998 was the best year..

[Strange_Will]

Excellent... too bad WEB BROWSERS don't follow CSS or XHTML standards overall! :P
Who cares what the standard is, if the majority of web users don't follow it.

I don't program to validate in XHTML (though I do follow practices), I program it to show up correctly in the major browsers, if you just follow XHTML and CSS compliance, your page turns out to look different in different browsers...

Yay (w00t)

[Stuart Elliott]

Who cares whether's it's W3C valid or not, what difference does it make as long as it renders in your webpage correctly.

[Guest]

validate for what? xhtml 1.0 complicate or regular html?

their "standards" change al lthe time anyways. Why not worry about making a pretty site and script and not worry about the ever changing "standards".

BTW almost all mysites are xhtml 1.0 transitional compliant, so im not just hating. I just miss the days of making sites that worked no matter of the code.

I only make sure my sites are valid to shut others up.

If i had a site that i just wanted to look good, i'd use simple html if i had to :P 1998 was the best year..

xhtml 1.0 of course, as that is what invision power board is coded as, just hit view source...

[Antony]

I'm all for standards, but validation != standards compliance. Validation is just a way of checking for errors on a page and with so much markup on a page as IPB generates, it's pretty hard to make that all validate. Standards are about building web pages in a standard way and validation isn't an acid test of standards-compliance - you can use elements inappropriatly and still get a valid webpage.