HTML5 validation

[Puntocom]

3 Errors, 1 warning(s) checking HTML5 validation at http://validator.w3.org

 

[Kier]

Sometimes I do think that IE5 got the box-model right. Including the padding and borders into calculating the width of an element makes so much more sense than W3C's way of not including it by default.

• CSS Box model tweaking - QuirksMode
• Did Internet Explorer get the Box Model Right? - net.tuts+
• IE5 got padding right. w3c got it horribly wrong - WebmasterWorld

Yes, in this instance, Microsoft were doing it right and the W3C had a major brain fart.

 

[Boothby]

a major brain fart.

LOL, may I quote you?

 

[Floris]

Maybe this is poking the bear, but ..

w3c is JUST a recommendation. XenForo doesn't run in HTML5 strict. So there's freedom for legacy, and custom tags, and that means the errors are warnings, and there's something to be considered, but they're not show stoppers.

 

[feldon30]

People who hang on every word of the W3C make me laugh. This thread has been very interesting so far, with some frankness and honesty.

 

[Tigratrus]

::nods::
The validator is a very useful tool, but you certainly have to use common sense rather than just blindly trying to achieve 100% validation. I do find it highly ironic that MS was doing something right in IE5 compared to W3C, but it's really not a debate, Kier's dead right, the W3C box model is borked

 

[Forsaken]

People who hang on every word of the W3C make me laugh. This thread has been very interesting so far, with some frankness and honesty.

Seeing as the WhatWG was created due to idiocy in the W3C... Makes me laugh too.

 

[Romchik®]

All related to Facebook HTML. At this point it a case of accept the minor validation errors, or lose Facebook integration.

@Kier, Facebook is now offering another option of integration - HTML5. There's no problem with validation!
It is suitable for XenForo?

 

[diego222]

This is stupid (I mean W3C validation, not you ). Every... I mean EVERY famous webs (IGN for example, also with xenforo forum) has a lot of errors.

 

[Forsaken]

This is stupid (I mean W3C validation, not you ). Every... I mean EVERY famous webs (IGN for example, also with xenforo forum) has a lot of errors.

Validation isn't stupid, it is just an ideal.

Ideally you should make your code as valid as possible though it isn't always the case due to browser support and techniques that have outpaced standards.

 

[diego222]

Validation isn't stupid, it is just an ideal.

Ideally you should make your code as valid as possible though it isn't always the case due to browser support and techniques that have outpaced standards.

Ok, Stupid could be offensive, but thats the only word I know in english to describe W3C. I mean... if you have a web that works great on every browser (and every version), people loves it and more important google (internet's God) love's it...... why people say "oh my god, my web doesn't validate"...... that's why I call W3C "stupid".

 

[Caliburn]

All related to Facebook HTML. At this point it a case of accept the minor validation errors, or lose Facebook integration.

I know "Facebook" is a huge thing and it's extremely popular but why not strip it from the core of xF and leave it as an official add-on available in the client area? I'd rather have a forum that validates 100% HTML5 out of the box.

Facebook functionality is not *critical* for some communities. I'd much prefer to see such functionality as "optional" and available as an add-on.

 

[Autonamus]

I know "Facebook" is a huge thing and it's extremely popular but why not strip it from the core of xF and leave it as an official add-on available in the client area? I'd rather have a forum that validates 100% HTML5 out of the box.

Facebook functionality is not *critical* for some communities. I'd much prefer to see such functionality as "optional" and available as an add-on.

Personally I don't understand the fascination with an arbitrary number. No functionality or gain whatsoever.

 

[James]

I know "Facebook" is a huge thing and it's extremely popular but why not strip it from the core of xF and leave it as an official add-on available in the client area? I'd rather have a forum that validates 100% HTML5 out of the box.

I ask you this: why?

Validation is good, but these minor errors don't take anything away from the site. They don't cause problems and screen readers can still read them just fine, they're just code related errors with no real value.

 

[Caliburn]

I ask you this: why not?

Facebook functionality is simply bloatware. It would be more appealing to have a standards compliant solution that's lighter in weight. I have never used the Facebook functionality in my communities.

 

[Forsaken]

I ask you this: why not?

Facebook functionality is simply bloatware. It would be more appealing to have a standards compliant solution that's lighter in weight. I have never used the Facebook functionality in my communities.

Removing facebook integration at this point would be pointless; it is more work to remove it and make a first party solution than it is to just leave the integration that is currently available in the core software. The functionality is completely opt-in and is not used unless you expressly set it up. There is no performance gain from removing it from the core when it is already disabled either.

Just because you do not use the functionality doesn't mean others have no use for it. Due to how widely used Facebook is it is something that should remain in the core especially as it was a constantly requested feature in the past when it wasn't included as part of core software.

They should perhaps move to the newer API offering however there is no impact if they do not.

 

[Caliburn]

Removing facebook integration at this point would be pointless; it is more work to remove it and make a first party solution than it is to just leave the integration that is currently available in the core software.

I won't argue that point as it makes logical sense. Although I do strongly support and encourage the removal of Facebook integration now that this information has surfaced.

 

[Forsaken]

I won't argue that point as it makes logical sense. Although I do strongly support and encourage the removal of Facebook integration now that this information has surfaced.

They're not going to remove Facebook integration, and that information has been a bit obvious (if true) for a while. That applies for every large company that does anything online however, not just Facebook.

 

[Caliburn]

They're not going to remove Facebook integration, and that information has been a bit obvious (if true) for a while. That applies for every large company that does anything online however, not just Facebook.

I think we've all known about it for a while but it's officially confirmed and the scope of it is increasingly alarming.

 

[Forsaken]

I think we've all known about it for a while but it's officially confirmed and the scope of it is increasingly alarming.

Yes, but it has no correlation to it being a feature on XenForo.

Administrators can enable it if they choose, or disable it without any degrade in performance. No one is forced to signup with Facebook, it is just a convenience.