W3C Validation

[Coastie]

I thought v2.2 was suppose to be W3C compliant?

Only the main boards page validates (stock install not here) what happened??

[Brandon C]

It's only with the board itself that it validates, and not with the other related components.

[Working4computers]

I remember signatures always being pointed out.

I believe a fresh install is valid.

[Coastie]

nope, the forums and topics pages do not validate. Only the boards entrance page.

there are a few < div > errors and such.

[Jaggi]

a page with no av's and sigs might validate but although i'd guess it'd depend on the content of a post like bbcode tags etc might set it off, ips have said a fresh ipb will validate so i'd assume that means all non user inputted data like forum view, index, profiles and ipb pages like members, help etc.

[bfarber]

I validated (a while ago, mind you) all pages with a fresh install.

Emoticons add an emoid attribute to the image tag (necessary for the preg matching) - this causes validation to fail after emoticons are posted, for example. I can't guarantee validation once user supplied data is added.

But, I did validate topic pages, forum pages, usercp, messenger, index, help, calendar, memberlist, and so on with a fresh install.

[Daniel.S]

I'm wondering why you use XHTML then.

Real XHTML would just throw an error and leave the user with cryptic messages. This is probably going to happen as the IE-dev-team is working on XML-parsers for the implementation of XHTML.

Not that XHTML isn't great. It's just nothing that should be used in such an unstable enviroment (reads: one that produces tag soup).

Of course, there are some not-technical advantages of XHTML as well, so we're going to see what time will bring up.