Puntocom
Well-known member
3 Errors, 1 warning(s) checking HTML5 validation at http://validator.w3.org
Funny you should mention that, Scott will be at my place on Wednesday, I'll see if I can convince him to get it changed by plying him with chinese food and southern comfortgoing directly to the Facebook dev team (good luck with that!)
hahaha. You can do it, I know you can.Funny you should mention that, Scott will be at my place on Wednesday, I'll see if I can convince him to get it changed by plying him with chinese food and southern comfort
Hehehe, see if he can figure out why I can't use my $50 Ads credits. The system goes in a loop.Funny you should mention that, Scott will be at my place on Wednesday, I'll see if I can convince him to get it changed by plying him with chinese food and southern comfort
Validation, unlike SEO, does matter for the humans reading it. I agree that some errors are pretty pointless and don't matter (like these damn OpenGraph meta tags), but making sure you're valid ensures that all [standards-compliant] web browsers view your site the same, and also makes it accessible for those who have disabilities.I realize people are trying to be helpful, but realize that it is humans that read websites, using web browsers, not HTML validator scripts. I guess there might be a few people browsing XenForo with lynx.
All of the invalid code shown won't do anything for humans reading it, sorry.Validation, unlike SEO, does matter for the humans reading it. I agree that some errors are pretty pointless and don't matter (like these damn OpenGraph meta tags), but making sure you're valid ensures that all [standards-compliant] web browsers view your site the same, and also makes it accessible for those who have disabilities.
Show me any browser that renders the pages differently after dealing with these particular validation errors described.Validation, unlike SEO, does matter for the humans reading it. I agree that some errors are pretty pointless and don't matter (like these damn OpenGraph meta tags), but making sure you're valid ensures that all [standards-compliant] web browsers view your site the same, and also makes it accessible for those who have disabilities.
All of the invalid code shown won't do anything for humans reading it, sorry.
I'm not saying THESE error codes will change rendering. From what I understand, his post was bashing validating HTML in general, which is what I was referring to. My post did mention that these errors are pointless.Show me any browser that renders the pages differently after dealing with these particular validation errors described.
Fair enough. I agree with you, standards compliance is important.I'm not saying THESE error codes will change rendering. From what I understand, his post was bashing validating HTML in general, which is what I was referring to. My post did mention that these errors are pointless.
I guess I agree. I recently got that "input:date" error and was going insane figuring out why it was an error. While some validation is important to the growth of the web, a lot of what we have now is just a hindrance.Fair enough. I agree with you, standards compliance is important.
Of course, sometimes the W3C just gets it plain wrong. The CSS box model is a prime example. Whoever came up with the the idea that 'width' should not include padding, border and outline was a bumbling fool, and their error has crippled the development of the web. It's not encouraging to see new idiotic errors creeping into specs either, such as the input:date requirement to contain a value. It's just plain wrong and lacks foresight.
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.Of course, sometimes the W3C just gets it plain wrong. The CSS box model is a prime example. Whoever came up with the the idea that 'width' should not include padding, border and outline was a bumbling fool, and their error has crippled the development of the web.
Someone at WebmasterWorld said:The idiot at w3c who decided to marry inner padding to outer width, deserves to be hit on the head with a metal spoon.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.