<![CDATA[PunBB Forums — XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/topic/4109/xhtml-10-strict-valid-punbb/ Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:50:09 +0000 PunBB <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19126/#p19126 I third that.

BTW, I like the colors you used at http://forum.blogcms.com/ .
(I also like this quick post thingy - very cool.)

]]> Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:50:09 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19126/#p19126 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19125/#p19125 I second that Paul, tables are definitely the best way, and most accesible, to present tabular data.. Some people just think tables are evil, but.. NO!!! When using properly TH, TD, TBODY, THEAD, TFOOT tags, tables are the very best solution to display, ehm, tables wink

]]> Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:16:02 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19125/#p19125 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19124/#p19124 Rod: DT and DD are fine for very simple tabular data like viewing another users profile where you have a simple name/value pairing. However, they have definite problems with complex tablular data. The main problem is that they cannot be coded for better accessability. A table can be coded using id's or scope to associate headers with data in a way a screenreader can understand. You cannot do that with a definition list.

]]> Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:04:45 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19124/#p19124 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19121/#p19121 Rickard : continue you do smile Your forum is great because it's simple, and ... all projects I have seen on SF, a day ... die ... your forum is young, you have under listening about users, and it's the most important ...

From my part, I'm working on a tableless template (indeed, why use table tr td ? dd dt are suffisant, and code better) ...

Remember : PUNBB will be never (and it's perfect) a big dinosaur like Vbulletin or PhpBB : punBB is fast 'cause there are no gadgets !!!

Continue like this Rickard (and ... Paul smile)

]]> Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:02:56 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19121/#p19121 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19109/#p19109 you can always get PunBB BLOG:CMS Edition release 1.1.15

http://forum.blogcms.com/viewtopic.php?id=226

it is XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid, and has MANY mods included...

]]> Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:00:56 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19109/#p19109 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19097/#p19097 Any ideas on when 1.2 will be released?

]]> Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:34:25 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/19097/#p19097 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/17133/#p17133 The best way to allow popups in xhtml strict can be found here: http://www.liquidpulse.net/articles/xht … tml_strict

Not only does it validate, its also semantic, and if a user with java script disabled clicks on it the link will still load in the current window.

]]> Fri, 09 Jul 2004 11:38:25 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/17133/#p17133 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16549/#p16549 Yeah, rADo has done some nice work. Hopefully though with 1.2 there won't be a need for a derived work. Only time will tell! :)

]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:02:43 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16549/#p16549 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16545/#p16545 after quite a few emails exchanged with Rickard, I think 1.2 will be pretty much the same as my current mod, better in some areas, so, with 1.2 there will be no "forks". With 1.1.4, this simply was NOT possible..

]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:48:32 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16545/#p16545 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16544/#p16544 ....looking for the POTB form for you...... smile

It just seems like you trying to drive your code down Rickard's (all everyone else) throat. One thing to make a contribution but another to degrade the dev's code in comments and expect all to jump on it. While I applaud you efforts, bottom line is I'll be installing what comes from Rickard...

What happens to all you mod when V1.2 comes out, or if I want to use PunBB++??

Sorry if I vastly underestimated the contribution you have made. I stand correctled and will humbly bow out of the thread....

]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:31:48 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16544/#p16544 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16530/#p16530 middleground wrote:

No offense, but this is really starting to seem like a BLOG:CMS thread, approaching advertisement?,  and while it is nice, I'm here for punBB.
{....just IMHO.....}


well, no offence either, but within last 3 days, this is what I have added to PunBB code:


* ALL, and I mean ALL, files have been *heavily* modified for markup, but not only to achieve XHTML 1.0 STRICT validity, but also to make A LOT of changes to CSS and layout. Old one was VERY inefficient. Now, CSS classes like pun* are not used at all. CSS is a lot simpler. The whole layout was redesigned. Nested tables removed.

* parser.php now works differently for [ img ], [ code ], [ quote ] and [ url ] tags, not only to be XHTML valid, but also way more simple, and no tables, again

* backup / restore functions have been added, though only for MySQL, I will fix this ASAP (I do not use DB layer, rather, direct DB access; have to get more familiar with your scripts)

* whole admin interface has been redone in new style

* install script has been redone in new style

* rss 2.0 export of posts (rss.php) have been added

* simple CSS toolbar and smilies support, with JavaScript, mod has been added to post.php, edit.php and quick post; now, it does NOT use images, and MANY users love this feature, while still being compatible with PunBB philosophy - KISS (keep it simple)

* templates, header.php and footer.php have been redesigned

* several (reported) bugs have been fixed

--

* NP_PunBB plugin has been created, which allows to insert items into users, forums, topics and posts tables

Now, see this:
http://hulan.info/blog/

And this:
http://hulan.info/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2

This is a great, and automatic, connection between CMS and FORUM smile Maybe you do NOT like it, but I am pretty sure A LOT of users will.

]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:26:08 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16530/#p16530 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16525/#p16525 No offense, but this is really starting to seem like a BLOG:CMS thread, approaching advertisement?,  and while it is nice, I'm here for punBB.

{....just IMHO.....}

]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:23:23 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16525/#p16525 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16507/#p16507 Paul wrote:
Rickard wrote:

Yes, but I don't like Sourceforge all that much. There are times when it's sloooooooow.

Too right. The download system is somewhat hit and miss as well. Yesterday it took me 10 minutes to download a 250k file and that was on broadband.

Well, yes, download is troublesome sometimes. But the rest is, surprisingly, just fine. CVS, Bug Tracker, etc., immediate response, and.. secure (use PuTTY, WinCVS).

]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:14:32 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16507/#p16507 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16506/#p16506 sf.net has been updating their systems. Anonymous cvs access has gotten better over the last couple of weeks. It's a judgment call, you could always host your own cvs.

]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:13:41 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16506/#p16506 <![CDATA[Re: XHTML 1.0 STRICT valid PunBB]]> https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16505/#p16505 Rickard wrote:

Yes, but I don't like Sourceforge all that much. There are times when it's sloooooooow.

Too right. The download system is somewhat hit and miss as well. Yesterday it took me 10 minutes to download a 250k file and that was on broadband.

]]> Mon, 28 Jun 2004 00:05:27 +0000 https://punbb.informer.com/forums/post/16505/#p16505