W3C Validation

[Roberdin]

Dani... I'm disappointed in you.

Results of Webpage Validation

:P

[Zachery]

Dani... I'm disappointed in you.

Results of Webpage Validation

:P

its just one tag that probally hasnt been updated in a while :)

[cscgal]

So what is the XHTML-compliant version of the li tag? To make the bullets?? ;)

[cscgal]

Ahh, I see .... I need something else to start my list. Gotcha.

[cscgal]

It's fixed but oh my goodness gracious http://www.techtalkforums.com has a whole lotta problems and I don't know how to fix all of them :(

[samaru]

Dani, I think your web site is fine. There's not at least ONE COOL LOOKING web site that's feature rich that can pass any sort of validation. Web sites that pass validation are web sites like http://www.useit.com/ or http://www.w3.org - but they're boring, ugly, and have no where near the functionality that a site like this has.

[samaru]

I hate to say, but in my experience, it seems that only programmers, who rarely have graphic abilities, are interested in validation. I should know, I'm a programmer. Then again, I'm a graphic designer too. ;)

[Zachery]

I hate to say, but in my experience, it seems that only programmers, who rarely have graphic abilities, are interested in validation. I should know, I'm a programmer. Then again, I'm a graphic designer too. ;)

i dunno my site should pass all w3c validations includeing CSS and XHTML 1.0 and it looks purdy damn nice >.

[Roberdin]

Dani, I think your web site is fine. There's not at least ONE COOL LOOKING web site that's feature rich that can pass any sort of validation. Web sites that pass validation are web sites like http://www.useit.com/ or http://www.w3.org - but they're boring, ugly, and have no where near the functionality that a site like this has.

All sites should and can pass validation with a few tweaks. It's a highly useful tool that means your site will dispaly correctly on a wealth of browsers.
The default style of most forum software is written to pass validation.

[samaru]

All sites should and can pass validation with a few tweaks. It's a highly useful tool that means your site will dispaly correctly on a wealth of browsers. The default style of most forum software is written to pass validation.

I agree with the word should. There are other things that also SHOULD be. Software should be free. Software should not have bugs. Software should be super optimized. Why isn't this always the case? Green little pieces of paper?

I know what you mean. But from a business perspective, sometimes this can't happen. Time is money, and validating and making sure everything is too perfect adds another layer of time to your project. This can be a tedious task when working with complex web sites and just can't happen.

[samaru]

Let me just make this clear. I'm up for validation, but as a last step. Also that doesn't mean that one should be careless when creating the HTML/XHTML design. One should do proper nesting, proper tag usage, and follow W3C standards as much as possible, but not get overwhelmed over just validation.

[SmartBeaver]

Indeed.