Site is not XHTML vaild.

Suggestions and comments about the ReactOS website

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
Brynet
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:32 am

Site is not XHTML vaild.

Post by Brynet »

Hey, just noticed this site claims XHTML 1.1 compliance. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http: ... actos.org/
That seems to be false. Failed validation, 14 errors

CSS is vaild :-)


Not a real error but still somthing to look into I suppose.
:oops:
frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Re: Site is not XHTML vaild.

Post by frik85 »

Brynet wrote:Hey, just noticed this site claims XHTML 1.1 compliance. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http: ... actos.org/
That seems to be false. Failed validation, 14 errors

CSS is vaild :-)


Not a real error but still somthing to look into I suppose.
:oops:
I will look at it (again).
Brynet
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:32 am

Post by Brynet »

Hmm, the site is still not vaild.. both the HTML and XHTML versions have so many errors it scares me :roll: I know, its foolish of me to complain and nag over this, but either fix the code or remove the vaildation tags, it sends the wrong message. (Bad code? ;))

XHTML 1.1 vaildation - http://www.reactos.org/?format=xhtml
Failed validation, 17 errors
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ype=Inline

HTML 4.01 Transitional - http://www.reactos.org/?format=html
Failed validation, 43 errors
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... ype=Inline
ScoTTie
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:40 am

Post by ScoTTie »

Most of these errors are pretty harmless and a by-product of having html/xhtml generated from the same source. There are a few biggish problems I had a look at fixing but my access on RosCMS isnt privileged enough.

The biggest problem i saw was the meta tag for 'Content-Type' on the html pages, it has an extra " after 'charset='.

It should read:

Code: Select all

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
This problem causes a follow on effect of errors.
frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Post by frik85 »

ScoTTie wrote:The biggest problem i saw was the meta tag for 'Content-Type' on the html pages, it has an extra " after 'charset='.

It should read:

Code: Select all

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
This problem causes a follow on effect of errors.
The problem is that some (older) browsers (using e.g. Gecko-Engine) have problems if the charset is not set this way and don't show unicode chars then.

If someone is able to figure out a w3c valid way (which works with several well known and widely used browsers), that would be great.
Harteex
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by Harteex »

I don't really care that much about if a document is valid or not. It's more important that it works good in most of the browsers.
Matthias
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:43 am

Post by Matthias »

Harteex wrote:I don't really care that much about if a document is valid or not. It's more important that it works good in most of the browsers.
XHTML documents must be valid, otherwise they won't be displayed by XML conformant browsers, as soon as they are being delivered with an XML content-type header (such as application/xhtml+xml) instead of an HTML one (text/html). If you want to see what auch an error would look like, go to the main page (www.reactos.org) and save the page to a file with the extension .xhtml or .xml. Then try to open the document with Mozilla Firefox, it won't work because it's broken XHTML.

@ frik85: The old versions of Mozilla you are talking about haven't been around for a _looong_ time. The encoding should be specified in the XML declaration and in HTTPs content-type header. The latter will work for every browser i know of.
GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by GvG »

You're welcome to submit patches
frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Post by frik85 »

We cannot use the xml version of xhtml because of several reasons.
First, there is no browser around which has extended support for that technologie (all are working on that area but nothing more). The current generation of browsers doesn't support xhtml very well. And older versions cannot even render it, the will show plain text or only error messages.
I haven't seen any website (except test pages) which use xhtml with xml rendering.
The primary goal is to make the ReactOS website viewable on almost all existing platforms/browsers. You can view it in text browsers, very old browsers and new versions too.
The second goal is to stay with the w3c standard if possible. Although, no browser around is full w3c compatible (even the amaya browser from w3c isn't) and their validator is sometimes buggy too. That's why it is hard to make it 100% valid. If it is on the one day valid, the next day there is a new version of their validator and it shows e.g. 10 errors. One week later, it shows 2 errors. (That's nothing new.)

And yes, everyone is welcome to submit patches.
ScoTTie
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 9:40 am

Post by ScoTTie »

frik85 wrote: The problem is that some (older) browsers (using e.g. Gecko-Engine) have problems if the charset is not set this way and don't show unicode chars then.

If someone is able to figure out a w3c valid way (which works with several well known and widely used browsers), that would be great.
I think you missread what i said.

The current HTML pages use:

Code: Select all

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset="utf-8">
Which is obviously invalid, it should be changed too:

Code: Select all

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
GvG
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by GvG »

Thanks, fixed.
frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Post by frik85 »

ScoTTie wrote:Which is obviously invalid, it should be changed too:

Code: Select all

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
I fixed this issue.
Matthias
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:43 am

Post by Matthias »

frik85 wrote:We cannot use the xml version of xhtml because of several reasons.
There is no non-XML version of XHTML. The fact that you are allowed to send it with a text/html content-type doesn't make it a non-XML-format. In fact, i didn't even suggest to migrate to an XML content-type.
frik85 wrote:First, there is no browser around which has extended support for that technologie (all are working on that area but nothing more). The current generation of browsers doesn't support xhtml very well. And older versions cannot even render it, the will show plain text or only error messages.
That's just wrong, _every_ current browser but IE supports XHTML. Worse than that, even IE7 won't support XHTML :(. So we'll have to stick with the text/html content-type. IE is such a f***ing piece of garbage.....
frik85 wrote:I haven't seen any website (except test pages) which use xhtml with xml rendering.
Now why does that not surprise me...
frik85 wrote: The primary goal is to make the ReactOS website viewable on almost all existing platforms/browsers. You can view it in text browsers, very old browsers and new versions too.
Your XHTML is not valid, but you claim it is! You use document.write(), which doesn't work when the page is rendered as XHTML. You didn't escape your JavaScript correctly, you did it the old HTML way (it's not necessary anyway nowadays). To be honest, i believe that you didn't understand the first thing about XHTML, you obviously didn't even test your pages with XML rendering!
Given that you didn't use semantic markup as you're supposed to, but you did almost everything with <div> and <span> elements, you probably didn't even understand the first thing (e. g. semantics) about conventional HTML. afair you are german, you might care to read this.
btw, my opinion is that it's better to ship correct HTML 4.01 than to ship broken XHTML (XHTML with a text/html content type isn't exactly broken, because it doesn't violate any standards, but from a technical point of view it's a very bad idea.). Actually, i believe that there is no point in using XHTML at all right now. HTML 4.01 offers you the _exact_ same elements as XHTML 1.0, you actually don't gain anything by using XHTML!
frik85 wrote:The second goal is to stay with the w3c standard if possible. Although, no browser around is full w3c compatible (even the amaya browser from w3c isn't) and their validator is sometimes buggy too. That's why it is hard to make it 100% valid. If it is on the one day valid, the next day there is a new version of their validator and it shows e.g. 10 errors. One week later, it shows 2 errors. (That's nothing new.)
And yes, everyone is welcome to submit patches.
W3Cs Validator is completely broken, and there is at least one better validator around, it checks your pages much more thoroughly. Use it, you won't be disappointed!
frik85
Developer
Posts: 829
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Austria, Europe
Contact:

Post by frik85 »

The only thing which breaks the validation currently is the auditing bar javascript code and the iframe fallback solution. The auditing bar is only a temporary thing and when the auditing is finished, it will get removed. Then the website is valid again. The only solution I found for an ajax fallback is the iframe and it is not in the "xhtml 1.1 strict" standard.

If someone want to improve the current javascript code, please submit the patch to bugzilla and I will update the code then.
Matthias
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:43 am

Post by Matthias »

Somebody who didn't know what he was doing must have messed with the ReactOS home page. It is now even more broken than before.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... eactos.org
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests