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

that is odd it is when I validate it


odd

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Take a look at my siggy

Take a look at my siggy

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

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

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.

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:

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..

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)

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

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...

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.