You are not logged in. Please login or register.
PunBB Forums → PunBB 1.2 discussion → valid xhtml 1.0 and mods
Not sure if this is the right place for it but I have been wondering about this. One of the things I like about PunBB is that it is all valid xhtml. Since it is and mods are released on the site shouldn't the mods be valid also?
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the time and effort everyone has put into creating both PunBB and the mods I am so glad to have. I was just a bit surprised to have to make changes to a few of the mods before they would validate.
The mods are not "official" releases, as far as I know, most are not made by members of the PunBB team; conclusion: don't expect random members to make things xhtml compliant.
If you've fixed mods to be that way, send them to the developer to have them update theirs with xhtml and then you'll be helping out all of us 
don't expect random members to make things xhtml compliant.
Why shouldn't we?
Good idea, I will do that.
teenagegluesniffer wrote:don't expect random members to make things xhtml compliant.
Why shouldn't we?
Because there are no standards for creating mods, which has led to some pretty haphazard creations 
Because there are no standards for creating mods, which has led to some pretty haphazard creations
Fair enough. Will there be standards for extensions?
Because there are no standards for creating mods, which has led to some pretty haphazard creations
There are standards for writing decent html, but most ignore them unfortunately.
the mod i made, links with category is valid 
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">My next MDT version will include a
## XHTML validated: Yes/No/Should be (Unvalidated)in the readme header. Should be is for people like me, who try to, but often forget to close an input with />, or what not
Smartys wrote:Because there are no standards for creating mods, which has led to some pretty haphazard creations
Fair enough.
Most probably although it can't be totally enforced, I would guess more about this will appear on the DevBlog at some point
teenagegluesniffer wrote:don't expect random members to make things xhtml compliant.
Why shouldn't we?
(Side) Note to self: Don't produce extensions that produce invalid XHTML!
I just realized I made a mod that produces invalid XHTML. 
Meh, we all do it, infact I just seen a topic on some punbb code that is invalid xhtml when a user doesn't have an avatar (or something like that...).
I would suggest the DevBlog discussion involves what extra information is needed in the mod/extention headers. You can't stop someone from (not)? caring. You can't stop someone from caring and messing up once in a while. But you can tell people if you care or not In many cases it's impossible to verify the xhtml unless you have some sort of client side validator.
Meh, we all do it, infact I just seen a topic on some punbb code that is invalid xhtml when a user doesn't have an avatar (or something like that...).
That wasn't invalid code, just a "warning" from Tidy: http://punbb.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=14862
PunBB 1.2.x is valid XHTML 1.0 Strict. But validation isn't everything, it's just a syntax checker, there's semantic and good practices to do beside basic validation. As far as I can tell (I haven't checked it deeply in the accessibility area), PunBB isn't doing bad on both account, and certainly way better than any other board out there.
PunBB Forums → PunBB 1.2 discussion → valid xhtml 1.0 and mods
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.