W3C Validation

11gardir

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
150
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
73
Country
This is the validation report for the front page of the site.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%...ine&group=0
wacko.gif
It's incredible!
 

ProdigySim

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
191
Trophies
0
XP
145
Country
United States
Why is the doctype set to XHTML when it's so obviously NOT meeting that requirement? There isn't any XHTML standard used anywhere as far as I can tell.

That being said, setting it to validate on HTML 4.01 Transitional doesn't make it any better.

Not that I give a damn. Big/complex sites like this hardly ever make spec, and don't care to, as it would make it hard to implement "cool" things.
 

11gardir

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
150
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
73
Country
It's still probably better to correct as many things as you can without compromising your design...but over 1000? That could take a while!
 

11gardir

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
150
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
73
Country
This website is supposed to be coded in the xhtml transitional version of html. Unfortunately, it has been done so with 1756 errors. Lots of these are the result of other errors overflowing (cascading), but it's still a lot.

For example, in xhtml, every tag must be closed i.e. or
, but they aren't. There's also the problem of using outdated tags like bordercolor, which should be done with css. This is normally done to make pages look OK in old browsers which don't support newer features, but then you aren't xhtml transitional anymore.

Fixing it would probably futureproof it, but it could take a lot of work, and some things might not work without dodgy tags. However, I can't say that it would speed it up, although it might.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    AncientBoi @ AncientBoi: :O:rofl2: +1