Website pages does not comply to standards!

[Jørgen]

Hi

I see a "html valid" logo in the bottom of
http://www.cvpug.com/forums/search.php?searchid=10330

Clicking the logo checks the page - and the validation service finds 46 (read: FORTY-SIX) errors.

Something to think about, Mr. Webmaster?

Regards
Jørgen

[spcover]

If we were getting complaints that the website did not work when using a major browser (IE or FF), then it would become a high priority.

We're using a third-party template for the Joomla base site, from which I extracted the header and footer elements to use with the vBulletin forums to keep continuity with the main site. All work was donated at no charge to the CVPUG.

I haven't heard any complaints and have no problems sleeping at night. :)

[Jørgen]

Hi

I never said your page did not work properly ;-)

I just pointed that you are using a "validity" mark for non-valid pages!

Jørgen

[zaboomafoozarg]

OH NOES! U HAVE DESECRATED TEH SACRED W3C STANDARDS! INTERNET DEMONS WILL DEVOUR UR SITE PROMPTLY!

... or not, LOL.

[Jørgen]

Hi

My original message was meant as an information to the webmaster saying: "You think your pages comply to the standards, but they do not. This might cause trouble wieving the pages for some users."

I am not a fanatic "comply-to-standards" guy; just pointing out that some users will not be able to view the pages as the webmaster expects.

I thought the webmaster would like to know?

Jørgen

[dbjorck]

Hi!

As feedback it was fine, but it was somewhat harshly expressed - in a way that could be (and was) misunderstood.

Writing "(read: FORTY-SIX)" when you have already said 46, is basically shouting. Capitals are also considered shouting in common netiquette. And the whole screaming announcement in the subject of "does not comply!" as well, with exclamation mark and all, made this feeling very strong. You sounded truly angry - and yes, fanatic. Preceding it with "read:" as well implies that you think the webmaster is too stupid to understand "46". It certainly made me think of Basil Fawlty shouting "read: FORTY-SIX" at Manuel and hitting him on the forehead with a spoon when I first read it :D

"Something to think about, Mr. Webmaster?" also sounded very sarchastic, like he had offended you in the past and you were paying back. It's a thin line with interpreting written text but in this case; "Mr." I think would sound sarchastic to most people after it seemed that you just apparently implied him an idiot, which I think is also what people were reading into it. You probably meant something like "Perhaps the webmaster should consider reviewing the 'Valid' status?"

That said, please continue coming to the forum and don't think us nit-picking or pit-nicking ;) This was just an unfortunate misunderstanding which often happens when people don't communicate in their own language.

Brgds

Danny, from around the corner

[Jørgen]

Hi

Points taken!

I regret the way I expressed myself. It was not my intention to offend anybody. My message was entirely meant as a feedback to the webmaster, saying: "Some users might have problems reading the pages at your site".

Jørgen

[spcover]

Hey, no problem here on my end.

As I said, I just applied some free third-party template to the publishing system we're using here and to the forum software. The template came with the W3C validation buttons on it. Honestly, I've never clicked on them.

Looking at them now, about half of them seem to be caused because the Validator doesn't like the PayPal Donation button on the main page. The code for that came from PayPal and the button works, so whatever the Validator doesn't like seems esoteric to me.

Also, the Validator doesn't seem to like the links to the Poll results on the main page and I don't know why.

The other errors (and all of them in general) don't seem to be functionally important.

As I said, the template came with the W3C validation buttons on it. The template probably was 100% valid prior to putting a real-life website in it. It's easier for me to take the validations buttons OFF the template than it is to try to please the validator. LOL I'm more concerned about the website's funcationality working in all browsers than whether the code meets the letter of the standards.

:)

Sean

[Jørgen]

Hi

I'm more concerned about the website's funcationality working in all browsers than whether the code meets the letter of the standards.


A way to get the website working in all browsers IS by meeting the standards ;-)

I know there are no problems in most browsers, as these (at the moment) are very foregiving to errors.

BTW: I have no problem with the PayPal button at my pages

Regards
Jørgen

[spcover]

I don't need a lesson on what W3C standards are for.

When I run an HTML Tidy report on the cvpug.com main page, using my Firefox plug-in, I get 0 errors and 24 warnings. On this page, as I type, I get 0 errors and 7 warnings.

Zero errors. It's not going to get any better than that.

I think all the constructive points have been made in this discussion. I will now close this thread.