Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.
Options

CSS and XHTML Validation

edited February 2007 in Vanilla 1.0 Help
Hey everyone,
Perhaps I am not doing this right, though every time I try to have the Lussumo Community validate (XHTML Strict and CSS) it does not. Is this because of the recent updated to Vanilla 1.0.3 - or, am I just doing something wrong? Here is the link if you would like to check yourself: CSS Validation, XHTML.

When I ran the XHTML validator on lussumo.com/community - it validates. However, when I run the validator on a topic (Getvanilla.com Bug) it does not validate and has several problems. Is there a reason it is not validating, is this just an oversight, or am I doing something wrong? Please let me know. :)

~Achi
«1

Comments

  • Options
    *Bump* Anyone know anything? I'm patient, I just don't want this topic to find its way to the trash-can without any replies. So, here's a little, 24-hours later, bump!
  • Options
    Aside from the fact that your CSS Validation link doesnt work for me, I'm guessing the discussion doesnt validate because one of the comments contains some code snippits for divs etc which probably confuse the validator because it's trying to work out what theyre doing there and why.
    That said i dont know how the validators work and I dont know the rules of validation so I'm just stabbing in the dark so to speak.
  • Options
    I just double checked and the CSS link works just fine - it should take you to the W3.org website and show a validation report. It only shows one error, all the others are mere warnings. As for the XHTML link... I accidently placed the wrong URL... lol. I've edited the post to include the URL change.

    I want to make sure I am either doing something wrong or that Mark and whoever else that designs Vanilla, knows. I want to use Vanilla because it uses valid CSS and XHTML. I was hoping to have these pass validation and was shocked when they didn't. Is this just a oversight? Thanks. :)

    ~Achi
  • Options
    StashStash
    edited December 2006
    Yeah, the XHTML isn't validating because the comments (which allow HTML) aren't valid XHTML. People using <br> instead of <br /> and <font> tags *shudder*. I think I even saw a </img> tag in there somewhere... So Vanilla validates by the look of things, but the users don't ;) Hear that users, you're invalid :P
  • Options
    See also this post about core forms validation errors.
  • Options
    This Vanilla forum uses XHTML 1.0 Strict, but I understand the latest XHTML version is 1.1. Does anyone know why Vanilla hasn't updated? Is it just too time consuming to make even minor changes throughout,are there some significant changes that would be required, or does Mark think there's something wrong with 1.1? (Please note, I don't have a problem with this, I'm only asking because I'm trying to come to grips with understanding the various document types and what are the reasons for using each one.)
  • Options
    This is maybe the most controvertial subject on websphere!
    The short version is "do NOT use XHTML 1.1 if you serve it as text/html". Most likely, you will, because IE is not application/xml+xhtml capable, and even Mozilla/firefox is not optimized enough yet.

    The minor revision number from 1.0 to 1.1 hides a breaktrough, loosing html "tag/soupe" compatibility.
  • Options
    As Max_B says, it's basically not compatible with most modern browsers yet, so we have to wait a little longer (again).
  • Options
    I'd much rather see Vanilla move to HTML 4.01 than XHTML 1.1 to be honest :)
  • Options
    @bjrn: please, don't start here the same battle as seen everywhere (I'm on xhtml side ;)
  • Options
    I'm going to re-open the last part of this discussion if I may - hope it won't be a "battle"! In the last few weeks I have done quite a bit of web searching, on both websites and forums, about HTML vs XHTML, and getting very confused. It seems that there is often more opinion than fact out there, and some people seem to be very "evangelistic" about their views. I'm wondering if I can at least get a few facts that all agree on, if there are any. I did a quick check of 20+ sites I visit a lot, and found that they were roughly evenly spread among HTML 4, XHTML 1.0 transitional and XHTML 1.0 strict. I found none with XHTML 1.1 in this small sample. So the majority seem to have gone to XHTML, yet the strongest and most fervently argued opinion I found "out there" was that HTML 4 was still the best option for anyone who needs to ask the question, and XHTML is either harmful, or, at best, only for those with special needs to link several different languages. So I wonder whether there are some factual statements behind all this. Do you generally think it is true that: 1. Some (most?) browsers can't yet handle XHTML properly. 2. XHTML is only really useful if you have a specific reason and you know you need it. 3. HTML 4 (5 is coming?) will be around for at least a decade and is not inferior for general use. 4. If XHTML is the way of the future, that future is likely to come very slowly. That is the impression I am getting, but is it factually correct? If it is, then I can form my own opinion on what is best for me. I am leaning to the view that I should write in XHTML 1.0 strict but use the HTML 4 DTD - I think this is possible and allows easier "upgrading" in the future. But I still understand so little. Any comments would be gratefully received, thanks.
  • Options
    edited January 2007
    ercatli wrote:

    1. Some (most?) browsers can't yet handle XHTML properly.
    2. XHTML is only really useful if you have a specific reason and you know you need it.
    3. HTML 4 (5 is coming?) will be around for at least a decade and is not inferior for general use.
    4. If XHTML is the way of the future, that future is likely to come very slowly.

    Honestly, the only real difference I can see between HTML and XHTML is that in XHTML you end tags that don't require an ending tag (like <p> </p>) with a /> at the end instead of just with a >. IE handles XHTML poorly with a certain header. If you don't know what I am talking about, do a Google search for "HTTP Headers." You rarely see them, because your browser gets them from the server and then makes decisions on what to do based on them. Of course I could argue that IE also handles CSS and JavaScript poorly with any doctype or header, but that was not your question. :) Going with the latest version of something is not always the best idea. Sometimes an older version suits the needs of someone much better than a newer version, and there may not be a problem with that. This is most certainly the case with people who still use the older doctypes - as long as they work as intended in the browsers.

  • Options
    I am leaning to the view that I should write in XHTML 1.0 strict but use the HTML 4 DTD
    This is a nonsense. If you choose to use xhtml (Doctype) then you must use xhtml DTD or else you are writing true tag soup. XHTML DTD, in fact is very close to html 4.1
    I have also had bat time figuring this out before choosing to stick to xhtml 1.0 strict.
    Just be sure to respect all recommendations for html compatibility of the W3C specs and you are OK.
  • Options
    ercatli, I think you're pretty correct with those five points, but I agree with Max_B that you should have the markup fit with the doctype you declare.

    Personally I don't see the point in using XHTML, to me it just looks like more work. And as far as I can tell XHTML won't replace HTML 4 at any point in the forseeable future, and I would expect a wide adoptation of the WHATWG's Web Applications (which was called HTML5 for a while) and things in that direction before XHTML.

    But when it comes down to it, you can pick anything you want. Point 1. you had doesn't have that much impact, look at Vanilla, it's XHTML but I would think there are very few browsers who can't handle it.
  • Options
    dan39dan39 New
    edited January 2007
    In my experience, XHTML allows for the CSS to be much more precise and flexible. In HTML, tables are acceptable because HTML encourages developers to use markup for presentational purposes. XHTML encourages your markup to be more semantic and appropriate for the data you want to style.

    The result of good XHTML markup provides a reduction of presentational markup, speeds page loads, reduces extraneous bandwidth by caching the styles in external style sheets, is more accessible for alternative browsers or screen readers, and lays a foundation for extremely easy CSS redesigns.

    The CSS Zen Garden is an ongoing showcase of what one can do with a single standards compliant XHTML web page and an infinite number of style sheets submitted by CSS designers from around the world.

    Vanilla's Custom Styles offer the same exact functionality as the CSS Zen Garden.

    With HTML it's certainly possible to do something similar to the CSS Zen Garden, but HTML doesn't encourage that kind of coding. HTML lets you get away with leaving some block elements unclosed, and it lets you use tables for layout purposes. Imagine if Vanilla had been released as a table-based design. It's layout properties just wouldn't be as flexible as they are.
  • Options
    Argh! Nothing is preventing you from using XHTML to make a table-based layout. Sure, all talk about XHTML has been good in encouraging people to use semantic markup, but to say that XHTML is more semantic than HTML is just wrong. The advantages you list for XHTML aren't XHTML specific at all, they are all related to well-made pages with good markup and use of CSS.

    HTML lets you omit some implicit tags, but they are just that, implicit. And you don't strictly need them. You can make really neat pages with minimal markup.
  • Options
    dan39dan39 New
    edited January 2007
    "...to say that XHTML is more semantic than HTML is just wrong. The advantages you list for XHTML aren't XHTML specific at all, they are all related to well-made pages with good markup and use of CSS."
    Yes, one could indeed achieve those advantages with HTML. But, I do feel that XHTML "encourages" more semantic markup because it demands well-formedness.

    For instance, HTML doesn't cut it for Microformats. It's lack of uniformity makes it technically less semantic than XHTML from a data exchange perspective.

    "XHTML is built on XML, and thus XHTML based formats can be used not only for convenient display presentation, but also for general purpose data exchange. In many ways, XHTML based formats exemplify the best of both HTML and XML worlds." —Microformats.org
  • Options
    This is getting to be almost as bad as the Windows vs Mac thing. That being said, I'm going to fuel the fire: Who the crap uses XHTML for data exchange? XML maybe, but XHTML? If you really want a format that does a great job with data exchange use JSON. If you really want to get down to it, XML is based off of SGML (someone correct me if I am getting the acronym wrong), which was designed after HTML, but was designed to mimic it but be more extensible. So XML is based more off of HTML than the other way around. I still hold to my opinion there is very little difference between the two besides the standards changes (like which tags and attributes are allowed). Well formed HTML is just about the same as well formed XHTML.
  • Options
    dan39dan39 New
    edited January 2007
    "Who the crap uses XHTML for data exchange?"
    Anybody who uses Microformats. And you probably will be using it too once Firefox 3.0 is released with native support for Microformats.

    Well formed HTML is XHTML. That's the whole point of writing valid XHTML — to make your markup well-formed. If you just try to write well-formed HTML, you don't exactly have a validator that's going to tell you when you left quotes off of an attribute.
  • Options
    edited January 2007
    dan39 said: Well formed HTML is XHTML. That's the whole point.

    That's my point as well :). Very little difference.

    A little off topic: How does one do the cool quote thingy?
This discussion has been closed.