And now for something completely different


(Rob D) #1

Few years ago, when I built my first site with RW, I ran it through a validator and found out that the code contains a lot of HTML errors and some CSS errors. I had a long discussion on that topic in the old forum, with people, who since disappeared from the community. There was a general agreement among us that both RW and add-ons generate an erroneous code.

Today, I decided to amuse myself and run my current site through the Unicorn (W3C validator). It returned 7 HTML errors and 215 CSS errors. Similar situation as years ago, but reversed. This time, the trouble is with CSS code.

I use basic set of CSS recommended/obtained from developers – kept in the global Configure Code Panel. Besides that, I have few lines of CSS code placed on few pages containing slideshows. My theme is OUTLINE from Henk Vrieselaar.

So, anyone out there who is interested enough in this topic to make a comment?


(Mark Sealey) #2

Thanks for that post.

I write HTML/CSS for a living and tend to want it to validate 100% - with the exception of workarounds unsupported by Internet Exploder :frowning: .

But with something as sophisticated and time-saving as RW, I tend to screw up my eyes and hope for the best - because I haven’t been let down yet.


#3

Just for comparison sake, try running the validator on microsoft.com (353 errors) or other major sites. Nobody strives for markup errors, but you may sleep better at night knowing that you have quite a few bedfellows.


(Rob D) #4

So, you guys are suggesting that non-compliance with web standards is so prevailing that I have no reason to worry about the results of my quick test?

Would you say the same about the Internet Explorer ignoring most of the standards and even trying to impose its own standards?

I’m just curious. What is the reason for the general consensus that IE is bad – and at the same time – erroneous code generated by our app of choice (and its add-ons) is not?


(Peter Danckwerts) #5

The validator flags all sorts of things which are non-standard but necessary such as vendor-specific css extensions.


(Rob D) #6

@peterdanckwerts – I understand that, but don’t you think those instances should be somehow resolved to comply with standards? Or, perhaps, we need a new set of standards from W3C? Or, do you think that standards are unnecessary, to begin with?


(Peter Danckwerts) #7

Sadly compliance relies on the browser developers and W3C inevitably moves quite quote slowly.


(Rob D) #8

Well, yeah, obviously. But still, I hoped for a more decisive stance on your part, guys, as people who use and trust the software that propagates your creations into the world… :cry: :arrow_left:︎ That’s me, very sad…


(Rob D) #9

P.S. But, on the other hand, I should be in a sunny disposition today, because nice folks at NASA just got me a board pass on the InSight mission to Mars, with the scheduled departure on March 4th, 2016. I also get 297,805,305 miles of Frequent Flier’s perk (that’s 479,271,181 km). Actually, I won’t be on that flight in person because I have a dentist appointment, but my name will be (encoded on a microchip on-board of the mission lander).

Don’t be envious, though. You can get your own boarding pass from NASA. Just go to this address and follow instructions.

See, I told you this was a thread about something completely different!

(NASA logo covered with my mugshot – for copyright reasons.)


(Peter Danckwerts) #10

What a hoot! Must get one. :grinning: