Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XHTML/CSS Validation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • XHTML/CSS Validation

    If you look for this or try to make your sites XHTML/CSS valid, have a looksie:

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...BB%2Findex.php

    Not to start a debate or anything, I'm just pointing out how a major product on the net isn't XHTML/CSS valid .

    Anyway, how important is XHTML/CSS validity to you?


  • #2
    It is very important. I wanted to get my site's coding over to XHTML 1.1 but vBulletin 3.0.x's templates are written for XHTML 1.0 and I don't have time to get them over to XHTML 1.1.

    Comment


    • #3
      While it is important, there is also no scence in following a standard that your clients have no support for. If it works in everything you throw at it odd's are it will be used reguardless of standards.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah but it offers forward compatibility and if you limit yourself to the things found in previous specifications and browsers, you can get backwards compatibility as well.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah, I'm creating a personal site at the moment, and I already have a template made that's XHTML 1.0 valid and CSS valid .

          Plus you can display those nifty W3C icons .

          Ironic, however, that the CSS valid icon isn't XHTML valid .

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Andrew111888
            Yeah, I'm creating a personal site at the moment, and I already have a template made that's XHTML 1.0 valid and CSS valid .

            Plus you can display those nifty W3C icons .

            Ironic, however, that the CSS valid icon isn't XHTML valid .
            lmao... kinda reminds me of how the W3C site itself wasn't XTHML 1.0 valid a few months back, have they fixed that

            MGM out

            Comment


            • #7
              http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...%2Fwww.w3c.org

              I guess so .

              Comment


              • #8
                Very important. I redesigned my site to use an entirely XHTML 1.0 Transitional/CSS layout (no tables).

                http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...com/main.shtml
                http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...com/main.shtml

                I'm also in the process of porting my software site to an XHTML/CSS compliant layout (though unfortunately the designer used tables, and I haven't the time to port them back to CSS blocks).
                "63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs, you get 1 whacked with a service pack, now there's 63,005 bugs in the code."
                "Before you critisize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you critisize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes."
                Utopia Software - Current Software: Utopia News Pro (news management system)

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think that everything should be made into XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Most everything I do is in that doctype. But for an added challenge when I was designing my blog application, I made it XHTML 1.1 and table-free. Turned out quite well.
                  Bugdar: PHP bug tracking software that is beautiful, fast, and robust.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Brad.loo
                    While it is important, there is also no scence in following a standard that your clients have no support for. If it works in everything you throw at it odd's are it will be used reguardless of standards.
                    So true

                    XHTML 1.0 Transitional should be the new standard but for obvious reasons it isn't at the moment. Many webdevelopers now understand the benefits of XHTML but you can't go for a table-free design which is not fully supported by the Internet Explorer.
                    That's the end of that!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I haven't found a site that doesn't render a tabless design yet...

                      Anyways, I try to do all my sites, hacks, etc in XHTML.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        i made mine XHTML 1.0 complient, I just have to work on the css now.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What I really hate are those W3 Buttons.. They are too large and really ugly. Why would you use them? You should not be proud of valid code. Valid code is a matter of course.
                          That's the end of that!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MrNase
                            What I really hate are those W3 Buttons.. They are too large and really ugly. Why would you use them? You should not be proud of valid code. Valid code is a matter of course.
                            You're allowed to make custom ones.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I always code in XHTML 1.0 Strict...

                              I am really excited for XHTML 2.0 though... Maybe too excited, as it won't be going mainstream for many years to come...

                              There are plenty of table-free designs that work quite nicely in Internet Explorer.
                              http://www.webtrickscentral.com/images/wtcsig.jpg

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X