Some things still don't validate

[Peter Duggan]

I know we've been round and round in circles about this valid HTML/XHTML business, but there are still things that don't validate in YaBB SE!

Sure, the default template is valid and remains valid if you avoid some features and/or your users don't post stuff that messes it up, but I've been running a few pages on our new graphics forums through the W3C validator and discovered several problems including the following:

• Lists don't validate (try this page and see)!
• Attachments displayed as images appear to be missing any form of alt text.
• One of the source files (can't remember which offhand) includes <hr color=gray size="1" />, which certainly isn't XHTML valid.
• It's still too easy to use an invalid signature because each sig is contained in a single, inline <font> element.

It's a pity these things are like that, but IMHO there's little point in having a valid empty template if it breaks the moment folk start posting to it. Perhaps someone from the dev team could be looking into this, because there really are a few little things to be sorted out.

[Spaceman-Spiff]

u're right, there's no closing </li> tag

something like this is also invalid:
testtest[/u]

Code Select Expand

[b][u]testtest[/b][/u]
but that will be the user's fault...

[Daniel Hofverberg]

I agree that it is too bad that some things still don't validate as XHTML 1.0. Especially since neither of the things Peter mentioned should be very hard to fix - Just a matter of adding </li> tags, adding alt attributes to images (empty alt texts would be enough) and use, for instance, div instead of font to contain signatures...

[[Unknown]]

I agree that it is too bad that some things still don't validate as XHTML 1.0. Especially since neither of the things Peter mentioned should be very hard to fix - Just a matter of adding </li> tags, adding alt attributes to images (empty alt texts would be enough) and use, for instance, div instead of font to contain signatures...

Divs aren't used because of evil ol' NS.  This has been covered numerous times.

If adding </li> is so easy, how do you propose it be done?

Rgiht now:

[ * ] = <li>

Would you have it be:

[ * ] = </li><li>

But, then it would look like this:

<ul></li><li></ul>

There are reasons, you know, why list items aren't valid..... I'll try to think of a good solution.

-[Unknown]

[Spaceman-Spiff]

maybe by adding a [/*]?
the code looks ugly tho, but that doesnt matter much

[Daniel Hofverberg]

Divs aren't used because of evil ol' NS.  This has been covered numerous times.

Really...? I have never experienced any problems with div tags... What about single cell tables then, with width="100%" border="0" and put signatures inside of that? Would that work? It should be functionally equivalent to div elements, and should validate as tables are block-level elements...

[[Unknown]]

Divs aren't used because of evil ol' NS.  This has been covered numerous times.

Really...? I have never experienced any problems with div tags... What about single cell tables then, with width="100%" border="0" and put signatures inside of that? Would that work? It should be functionally equivalent to div elements, and should validate as tables are block-level elements...

But then IE 5.5 users would see the text in a funky size!

-[Unknown]

[Daniel Hofverberg]

What about single cell tables then, with width="100%" border="0" and put signatures inside of that? Would that work? It should be functionally equivalent to div elements, and should validate as tables are block-level elements...

But then IE 5.5 users would see the text in a funky size!

What about associating that table with a new CSS class then...? That must work...!

[Spaceman-Spiff]

older browsers dont support css well