Coastie Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I thought v2.2 was suppose to be W3C compliant?Only the main boards page validates (stock install not here) what happened?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon C Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 It's only with the board itself that it validates, and not with the other related components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Working4computers Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I remember signatures always being pointed out.I believe a fresh install is valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coastie Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 nope, the forums and topics pages do not validate. Only the boards entrance page.there are a few < div > errors and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggi Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel.S Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.