Joomla Templates Club 406,261 posts

[SP Media Friend SP MediaJoin date: September 2014Posts: 477Downloads:0Uploads:12 Thanks: 38 Thanked: 70 times in 27 posts]

#137510

Quartz fails validation, it has a few things missing, or incorrect.

Please check;

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joomlart.com%2Ftemplates_demo.php%3Ftemplate%3Dja_quartz&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

[wooohanetworks Friend wooohanetworksJoin date: September 2008Posts: 1239Downloads:0Uploads:2 Thanks: 148 Thanked: 138 times in 41 posts]

#288270

Most templates here fail the check. Try all the ones on the frontpage, most fall through, also when it said they validate without errors. There are some that validate, I checked most already, but a lot or most fail the validation.

But, that can be much unimportant, as soon you write an article and use the “&” instead of “and”, you will fail the validation again when your site was clean before. This from my experience with the W3C project.

[SP Media Friend SP MediaJoin date: September 2014Posts: 477Downloads:0Uploads:12 Thanks: 38 Thanked: 70 times in 27 posts]

#288319

The failure in validating is down to a tag not being closed properly, not down to using an ampus and.

[wooohanetworks Friend wooohanetworksJoin date: September 2008Posts: 1239Downloads:0Uploads:2 Thanks: 148 Thanked: 138 times in 41 posts]

#288347

The whole validation issue is useless. As I mention, as soon you add special characters to a perfectly validating site, which I had, the validation shows all those as errors. So, I removed both the logos I received from W3C again, as I rather use special characters than being limited due lacking W3C compliance rules.

Look over most the commercial sites, even the Microsoft Homepage is not validating.

XHTML:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.microsoft.com&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

CCS:

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=www.microsoft.com&profile=css21&usermedium=all&warning=1&lang=en

[SP Media Friend SP MediaJoin date: September 2014Posts: 477Downloads:0Uploads:12 Thanks: 38 Thanked: 70 times in 27 posts]

#288365

Microsoft invented IE6 and IE7. They’re not exactly a benchmark.

Either way, saying validation is useless is quite laughable.

[ShannonN Friend ShannonNJoin date: July 2006Posts: 1947Downloads:0Uploads:9 Thanks: 16 Thanked: 172 times in 49 posts]

#288370

spmedia;108428Microsoft invented IE6 and IE7. They’re not exactly a benchmark.

Either way, saying validation is useless is quite laughable.

I think validation is important but many designers stress out to the extreme if one tag causes problems. I feel it’s to keep some uniformity between browsers, Microsoft dropped out of the W3C committee several yrs ago probably as it was easier given their monopoly to just do it their way than keep trying to make IE compliant?

We must however try to keep it sane, I hear in the US government based sites have to validate, but believe this is to cater for blind people and text readers etc? Unless the rules have changed yet again as they often seem to do.

[mj1256 Friend mj1256Join date: June 2007Posts: 1473Downloads:10Uploads:35 Thanks: 84 Thanked: 225 times in 118 posts]

#288379

ShannonN makes a good point

the broswers do not comply with w3 either in the way they render the websites. IE is proprietary and they ignored all the standard protocols. It come up to bit the in the butt though as we have all experience the clcik the toolbar above to activate activex controls, this is because they were not given a lincense by the developer to use it. IE also did not follow protocol for the use of domcom. With all of the cross browser compatibility issues, even when you do get a site to validate, you sacrifice somethingh somewhere for it.

Just do the best you can, make sure your scripting is correct. As the browsers use the protocols differently, it is rare that you can get a complex site such as can be developed with joomla to pass all of the protocols and still meet cross browser compaitibility

[ShannonN Friend ShannonNJoin date: July 2006Posts: 1947Downloads:0Uploads:9 Thanks: 16 Thanked: 172 times in 49 posts]

#288403

@ Mr Wooohanetworks

You mention several times in some posts that Microsoft invented this, I understand that English may not be your native language and I must ask you to clarify, are you saying Microsoft invented the web standards for Browsers? or did Microsoft invent the first browser and set the standard, I ask only to make very sure I understand fully before making any comment to avoid confusion and and claim of conflict

[SP Media Friend SP MediaJoin date: September 2014Posts: 477Downloads:0Uploads:12 Thanks: 38 Thanked: 70 times in 27 posts]

#288445

I’m just stunned by all your responses. If it weren’t for w3, you wouldn’t have CSS2, CSS3, XHTML, the list goes on and on and on and on.

Building websites in tables is just horrible, messy, untidy way of doing anything. The point of this thread was not a debate about w3 compliancy, but the failure to close a div tag which has remained open – a mistake by whoever developed the mini gallery module.

[mj1256 Friend mj1256Join date: June 2007Posts: 1473Downloads:10Uploads:35 Thanks: 84 Thanked: 225 times in 118 posts]

#288498

<blockquote>are you saying Microsoft invented the web standards for Browsers</blockquote>

microsoft invents nothing, they steal it all

<blockquote>I’m just stunned by all your responses. If it weren’t for w3, you wouldn’t have CSS2, CSS3, XHTML, the list goes on and on and on and on.

Building websites in tables is just horrible, messy, untidy way of doing anything. The point of this thread was not a debate about w3 compliancy, but the failure to close a div tag which has remained open – a mistake by whoever developed the mini gallery module.</blockquote>

you are correct, we got off track and I agree, using tables is over and not a good thing any more, and the mistake needs to be corrected

[Menalto Friend MenaltoJoin date: May 2007Posts: 4736Downloads:0Uploads:43 Thanks: 2 Thanked: 531 times in 361 posts]

#288894

This would be the correct link to check the template with:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Ftemplate15.joomlart.com%2Fja_quartz%2F

And it gives a little less errors than the link provided in first post as that one right from the demopage

[Author]

Posts