W3C buttons

[youspeakmylanguage]

This isn't a huge issue, but as of today (7/2/06) this board is not valid HTML per the W3C's validator. Because of this, you can't post these buttons unless the mark up is fixed.

Basically, you guys either have to correct the mark up or remove the buttons.

Thanks,

[Cheapy]

Basically, you guys either have to correct the mark up or remove the buttons.

or what will happens, the internets police will arest romero?

[youspeakmylanguage]

Basically, you guys either have to correct the mark up or remove the buttons.

or what will happens, the internets police will arest romero?

Not at all. But if something needs to be fixed, why attack the messanger? Why not just fix it? These are two minor errors we're talking about.

The "internets police" make sure the internet works the way it should.

[Cheapy]

who gives a crap about w3c validation, the forum works just fine thanks

[youspeakmylanguage]

who gives a crap about w3c validation, the forum works just fine thanks

If you don't give a crap about validation then remove the buttons. It shouldn't be that difficult. Posting the buttons when your markup isn't valid makes you (and Romero by extension) look bad, not me or the W3C. I'm looking out for Romero.

[warlordQ]

This isn't a huge issue, but as of today (7/2/06) this board is not valid HTML per the W3C's validator. Because of this, you can't post these buttons unless the mark up is fixed.

Basically, you guys either have to correct the mark up or remove the buttons.

Thanks,

Of course its not HTML.... this board produces XHTML ..

Anyway check out their faq, or post this in their faq..
http://www.simplemachines.org/support/faq/

[youspeakmylanguage]

Of course its not HTML.... this board produces XHTML ..

Cute.

Anyway check out their faq, or post this in their faq..
http://www.simplemachines.org/support/faq/

They seem to have the right idea, although not all of their pages validate.

Anyway, I don't think they would be interested in dealing with this since the errors stem from mark up that someone used to insert John's banner and not their original mark up:

#  <tr>
#
# </tr>

The truly asinine thing about this is it would take less than five minutes to fix. Instead, we're going back and forth on this thread. Truly brilliant.

[Cheapy]

The truly asinine thing about this is it would take less than five minutes to fix. Instead, we're going back and forth on this thread. Truly brilliant.

if you ask me i think it's truly assinine to complain about web markup that doesn't really affect the functionality of the site.

[chiQ]

Thanks dude. I guess if John's worried he'll sort it. I think he's got higher priorities than W3C though. Non-compliance != loss of functionality.

[Malchik]

I'm with youspeakmylanguage. Any in-perfections get on my nerves, no matter how useless.

Can i also suggest Spoiler and Youtube tags?

[youspeakmylanguage]

I'm with youspeakmylanguage. Any in-perfections get on my nerves, no matter how useless.

Can i also suggest Spoiler and Youtube tags?

It's not really the imperfections that bother me at all, since most modern browsers compensate for almost all common imperfections. The W3C badges are displayed now really as both a badge of honor and as a learning tool for those that don't know what web standards or the W3C are, and both purposes are skewed when the badges are displayed on pages with improper markup. Not only do the people in the know think the webmaster is clueless, but others who have no appreciation for or understanding of proper markup begin to think (as Cheapy or Jerkface or whatever he calls himself seems to think) that the badges are essentially meaningless. It's like wearing a button that says "I'm a proud vegan!" while munching on a porterhouse steak.

I know John does not have the time to care one iota about this, but I figured someone else may have access to the markup and would be able to take them down.