|
Description
It's silly to be pushing open standards when we don't follow them for our own sites.
Improvement went from 54 errors to 4.
Ubuntu.com Failed: 4 Errors
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fubuntu.com&charset=%28detect+aut omatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0
All Ubuntu websites should pass the W3C validation checks. (none appear to currently)
For reference:
Microsoft, Redhat, Sun, Novell, openSuse and Apple fail.
Debian, Fedora, Linux Mint, Gnome, KDE, Opera, Firefox and OpenOffice.org pass
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Nullius wrote on the 3 Apr 08 at 22:38
|
You're right in theory.
But most of these errors are just details (eg method="GET" instead of method="get").
The W3 validator is very strict, so a lot of details will become errors.
Another example: sometimes a developer makes errors by intension, just because it will look the same in all browsers (closing some tags will generate an extra white space in older versions of IE for example).
So it has no use coding everything correctly while browsers don't parse them correctly.
But in theory, you're right, so +1.
|
|
ajjeckmans wrote on the 3 Apr 08 at 22:49
| |
besides that everything below the JavaScript errors can be ignored as the validator gets sidetracked at that point
|
|
mati wrote on the 3 Apr 08 at 23:30
|
There are more important problems that need to be solved by Canonical.
IMHO it would be a waste of manpower, which could be used to improve things for us, end users.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 4 Apr 08 at 07:53
| |
I don't see why we shouldn't. Its easy to find web developers. Not sure why Canonical couldn't hire one short term to fix this (may only take a few hours)
|
|
magesor wrote on the 4 Apr 08 at 13:19
| |
Absolutely agree and support this claim.
|
|
futwick wrote on the 4 Apr 08 at 13:38
|
> But most of these errors are just details (eg method="GET" instead of method="get").
So get the details right. It's not hard.
> The W3 validator is very strict, so a lot of details will become errors.
Of course it is being strict. The page is served with an XHTML Strict doctype.
And as for using a table-based layout...
|
|
boteeka wrote on the 5 Apr 08 at 10:11
|
Write ONE character wrong in a C source code, and it won't even compile.
So, get all the details right, even if you think it "doesn't matter". It does matter!
If the spec tells it should be lower case then it must be lowercase. End of story.
> closing some tags will generate an extra white space in older versions of IE for example
If so, then what? Support standards, not crappy browsers. This way you force browser vendors to comply with the standards.
|
|
orvils wrote on the 10 Apr 08 at 06:48
| |
It won't make a difference.. In my oppinion this can wait
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 19 Apr 08 at 03:10
| |
Orvils, I have 1 question.. Even if we do it now, will it actually hold up ubuntu development (probably not)
|
|
Jaymac wrote on the 27 Apr 08 at 08:06
| |
I'm for this; it wouldn't be at all difficult to do - no more than a couple of hours' work
|
|
Mike Graham wrote on the 31 May 08 at 14:59
|
Voted yes.
I would be surprised if this wasn't policy. The websites should be fixed to be standards compliant. Most fixes are probably simple. If there are parts of the Ubuntu websites that are not easily fixed, it should be a long-term goal to make them standards compliant.
|
|
comicinker wrote on the 4 Sep 08 at 17:29
|
No!
This is not a meaningful test. The browser switches are probably not considered, Javascripts are probably not all respected...
Ubuntu's websites are working, they don't exclude alternative browsers (e.g. IE), don't use ActiveX and are looking good.
Beware of getting fanatic about Standards! Especially if you haven't read any. I mean the Standard at origin, not secondary or tertiary literature.
|
|
shawe_ewahs wrote on the 25 Sep 08 at 09:48
| |
Zas! En toda la boca
|
Post your comment
|
