W3C Validation

Discussion in 'Site Discussions & Suggestions' started by 11gardir, Apr 9, 2008.

  1. 11gardir
    OP

    11gardir GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    150
    0
    Feb 2, 2008
  2. ProdigySim

    ProdigySim GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    191
    0
    Nov 23, 2005
    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.
     
  3. 11gardir
    OP

    11gardir GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    150
    0
    Feb 2, 2008
    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!
     
  4. WeaponXxX

    WeaponXxX Too F'in Blonde

    Member
    2,868
    2
    Nov 4, 2004
    United States
    Currently in Chicagoooooooo
    Would addressing these errors make my site run faster? Anyone care to explain what this is?
     
  5. 11gardir
    OP

    11gardir GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    150
    0
    Feb 2, 2008
    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    For example, in xhtml, every tag must be closed i.e. or [​IMG], but they aren't. There's also the problem of using outdated tags like bordercolor, which should be done with css.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.