HTML 4.01 Complient - Not!

[Website Rob]

Howdy all,

Just popped on over and happen to notice the button for 4.01 complience. Don't know what Validator was used, but as you can see from the W3C Validator, it's a no go. Anyone know what the confusion is about? It's definitely not from W3C and I'm wondering if the button is a carry-over from a previous version of YaBB.

[Jeff Lewis]

It's from W3C.  The system (SE) is compliant, but out particular site here isn't.  So if you were to install your forum and do the validation, it would pass.

[Michael]

That's funny, it does. I don't think 1.0 ever validated for me, and I hadn't tried it with 1.1 yet.

[Jeff Lewis]

Yes it does, Tim C, over ay yabbforum spent a LOT of time making it compliant.  Users have also thanked us for making it compliant...

[Michael]

Okay..

W3C compliance is cool, but unfortunately doesn't mean a great deal besides "this SHOULD display perfectly in all web browsers." Maybe one day standards really will be standards...

[Jeff Lewis]

I have to agree there.  One thing that makes it difficult as well is the fact that a lot of people still use Netscape 4.7 which is damn ancient in internet time.

However, if you're compliant, it gives you a chance to say "I can't help it if netscape doesn't render properly - we're W3C compliant"

[Michael]

Hehe, right on!

[Shoeb Omar]

heehe - but thing is it takes a hell load of time to make things w3c compliant.. i tried it with my site once lol..

i prefer to say: "screw you netscape!"

[groundup]

if ppl cant use this forum than they should not be using mainstream sites.  God, how hard is it to spend the $200 to get a new computer that can handle a basic NEW browser?  

if my site works with ie5+ that is all i m concerned about.  If it works with others, all the better.  i try to include the linux browsers too.

[Peter Duggan]

To Website Rob:

We've been here before! But I'd also like to see the 'Valid HTML' links removed till the whole site complies!

To Michael:

If no-one used invalid HTML, standards really would be standards. But the (ultimately trivial) reason 1.1.0 validated when 1.0.0 didn't can be found on page 2 of the same topic.

To Omario and groundup:

Sticking to the standards would benefit everyone in the long run. And, despite some browsers lagging behind, it's still easier to write good code than bad and make things work properly if you do. Especially with brilliant little apps like HTML Tidy to help you!

To Jeff (and Tim C):

Some users still thank you for making it compliant!

[Shoeb Omar]

hehe.. sure.. if ya have the tim to foloow the standards its worht it.. but if ya dont if it works in ie and opera ur good to go i think