What's so funny? Mine isn't valid either because there's no way to get SWF files to be valid right now.
why are you laughing at your own site's crappy programming? ever considered actually FIXING the a errors?
Oh, and my W3C validator in firefox shows 90 warnings for your site, so the 60 errors that they are reporing is being lenient.
Kirb's site, by contrast, only has 3 warnings, and they all deal with the .swf embed tag (which is wierd, cause if you do a search, you'll see w3c examples w/ the embed tag, but whatever)
course, this site gets ~150 errors - which really should be fixed
Hehe...try mine...oh wait, you already said that. I should probably work on that.
my main page only gets 7 errors, and they are all but one, not having alt tags on images
I almost NEVER give my imgs alt tags.
yeah, I don't see the point really, but I guess they should be used for off site pics
Kllrnohj wrote:
why are you laughing at your own site's crappy programming? ever considered actually FIXING the <font color=red>censored</font> errors?
Oh, and my W3C validator in firefox shows 90 warnings for your site, so the 60 errors that they are reporing is being lenient.
Kirb's site, by contrast, only has 3 warnings, and they all deal with the .swf embed tag (which is wierd, cause if you do a search, you'll see w3c examples w/ the embed tag, but whatever)
course, this site gets ~150 errors - which really should be fixed
The page works, that is all that matters... 
it works NOW, but thats just because web browsers are letting you get by with it. you're lucky that HTML is such a forgiving language, or you'd be screwed...
it would still be a good thing to fix the errors, as then your site will load slightly faster, as web browsers won't have to spend time guessing at what you meant
Well, if I can figure out why in the world <html> is not valid...
For some reason, it is saying that <TR> is not allowed in the tables. I think the validator doesn't have a clue...
Just go through fixing errors a group at a time then revalidating. Each will show why it's wrong as you work through it. I would also suggest making as much as possible CSS-ified.
Indeed. CSS makes everything much easier.
TI-Freak8x wrote:
Well, if I can figure out why in the world <html> is not valid...
For some reason, it is saying that <TR> is not allowed in the tables. I think the validator doesn't have a clue...
<html> is a valid tag...did you read the error? it says why it marked that. The reason is that you never declared a DOCTYPE:
Quote:
no document type declaration; implying "<!DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM>".
just throw this at the top of every page (assuming it is HTML and in english)
Code: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
I remember having to do that. Now I have universal pages the hold the layout of the whole site in a few files. Makes it a lot simpler and easier to work with. If you want, I can help you make your site work on CSS, get repeatitive things into external pages, and W3C compliant (unless you use SWF files, in which case that's their fault for not allowing EMBED tags).
That would be great if you could help make it work better...
If you have time I mean.
It isn't a major big deal, and I would like to see it be with less errors, but you also cannot tell me it doesn't load quickly...
TI-Freak8x wrote:
It isn't a major big deal, and I would like to see it be with less errors, but you also cannot tell me it doesn't load quickly...
i never said it didn't load quickly. But for slower computers, fewer errors will equal faster performance
I can defintely tell a difference between this site and many other phpBB boards. This loads so much slower after connecting to the server. Other sites have longer connections, but once connected, the page almost instantly loads. I am currently working to get my forum compliant with some standards.
Yeah, I've cut down my frontpage errors from 187 to 109 now...
Yeah, I might deal with some of the bugs over the weekend...
