phpBB not valid in Xhtml

The 2.0.x discussion forum has been locked; this will remain read-only. The 3.0.x discussion forum has been renamed phpBB Discussion.
User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX »

This is becoming a little tiring ... there is nothing, absolutely nothing at all, stopping the "community" from producing a fully compliant XHTML subsilver and any relevant Mods for the 2.0 codebase and releasing them.

What you mean is why don't we "run" a project to do it ... Why must we? People keep harping on about the community and how we're open source ... yet when push comes to shove so few of you actually do anything about it. You want us to manage it.

So here's an idea, if you want a fully XHTML compliant subsilver ... get on with it and stop waiting for us to take the lead. Heck, I may even include such an update in a future 2.2.
FF8Jake`
Registered User
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:06 am
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Contact:

Post by FF8Jake` »

psoTFX wrote: So here's an idea, if you want a fully XHTML compliant subsilver ... get on with it and stop waiting for us to take the lead. Heck, I may even include such an update in a future 2.2.
If an XHTML compliant version were made, would you include it in the current 2.0.* branch? If so, i'll fire up a topic in MOD Beta Dev and try to get the ball rolling, unless there were someone from staff(who carry a lot more phpbb weight than a common member) wanted to. :)
Caution, joking on a webforum can sometimes lead to this: Video footage
Please, think before posting about religion/bush/war/law enforcement. Please, save a keyboard.
User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX »

Not 2.0, no ... as I said, possibly 2.2.
FF8Jake` wrote: unless there were someone from staff(who carry a lot more phpbb weight than a common member) wanted to. :)

huh? Ya see this is what I mean ... why does a member of staff "carry more weight" when it comes to writing a Mod? There are dozens of Mod authors out there completely unconnected with phpBB Group per se. phpBB Group members are already "overworked" in most cases preparing for 3.0. Lots is going on behind the scenes the community is currently not (entirely) aware of ... free time is @ a premium for us all.
FF8Jake`
Registered User
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:06 am
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Contact:

Post by FF8Jake` »

psoTFX wrote: huh? Ya see this is what I mean ... why does a member of staff "carry more weight" when it comes to writing a Mod?
Firstly, this shouldn't be considered a MOD, it should be a major bug fix. Secondly, have you not noticed how many people absolutely scramble to read anything you type? You're the leader of the pack. A simple post from you, or someone up the ladder does in fact get the ball rolling much faster.
psoTFX wrote: ... free time is @ a premium for us all.
Yes, i'm sure it is, though how you find time to post back and forth with me instead of a small post asking the community to band together and make an XHTML version, suitable for release, totally baffles me. :)

I guess I won't make a topic then. :(
Caution, joking on a webforum can sometimes lead to this: Video footage
Please, think before posting about religion/bush/war/law enforcement. Please, save a keyboard.
NeoThermic
Security Consultant
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 1:33 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by NeoThermic »

FF8Jake` wrote: Firstly, this shouldn't be considered a MOD, it should be a major bug fix.

Wikipedia page on computer bug wrote: A computer bug is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from working correctly or produces an incorrect result.


Does not having a valid template:
  1. Prevent phpBB from working correctly?
  2. Produce an incorrect result?
While you might think that not being valid falls under 'b', I would say it doesn't; more over having it valid XHTML is just an extra IMO. I know that I've gone to the lenght to make my forums XHTML valid, but as far as I see it, I wanted to do that because I was not only bored, but just for the shear hell of it.

You will be more than welcome to make a mod that allows people to have a valid forum, but you must remember that not all templates are invalid, and there is only a few small lines to change in phpBB's code (to do with auto URL's) to insure correct XHTML.

Its not a bug, its not critical, and thus not major.

NeoThermic
NeoThermic.com... a well of information. Ask me for the bit bucket so you can drink its goodness. ||新熱です
User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX »

FF8Jake` wrote: Yes, i'm sure it is, though how you find time to post back and forth with me instead of a small post asking the community to band together and make an XHTML version, suitable for release, totally baffles me. :)

Because people such as yourselfs cannot or will not help yourselves. If I say nothing you accuse me of doing nothing ... if I respond (and yes, today taking time away from a significant chunk of work) I get accussed of wasting time.
FF8Jake` wrote: I guess I won't make a topic then. :(

Whatever floats your boat. I have absolutely no intention to divert any of the teams away from their current tasks to bring subsilver and 2.0 to a point it validates XHTML 1.0 transitional/strict. It ranks about as low as possible on the TODO list right now. Come back in a few months and things may have changed.
SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG »

FF8Jake` wrote:
SamG wrote:A "workaround" that serves an XHTML 1.1 document as text/html is still a problem.
But a better problem than sending it to a browser as xml if the browser doesn't support it. :)

While I understand what you're saying, it makes little sense to say it in the context of a thread that essentially argues in favor of standards compliance. If you want to comply with standards, you don't deliver an XHTML 1.1 document as text/html to any browser. :)
We should talk less, and say more.
CLee
Registered User
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 2:42 pm

Post by CLee »

Why not create your own template that is XHTML compliant? Or use a template that is already XHTML compliant, such as one of Dez's old templates. And the fact that phpBB is not XHTML compliant is not really a bug. It is noncompliant markup that still manages to work as intended. It's not really broken, so there is no need to fix it.
Carlos Myers
A+, Network+
Member - Star Wars Roleplaying Club
Magnotta
Former Team Member
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:16 am
Location: Ontario

Post by Magnotta »

While I appreciate standards, and am working towards making my site's own template xhtml compatible, and also more css based, I don't think it should be done to subSilver now, and if i was psoTFX I wouldn't even bother with it. Why? Because it's such a small aspect of a forum, and really the last thing that should be thought of. There's been ton's of feature requests, and all of them were said "no" to for phpBB2, and held of until phpBB3. Why should the template be any different, especially when the issue of valid xhtml has already been handled for phpBB3 as per one of subBlue's previous posts. Anyone who actually cares that much about getting phpBB standards compliant now porbabky already knows xhtml good enough to do it themselves. Any of you who do not know xhtml, yet find it such a big deal, are most likely just doing it to be trendy(to whatever extent valid html can be considered "trendy" :roll: ). For psoTFX, juts forget about everyone complaining and just keep subSilver as it is.
Locked

Return to “2.0.x Discussion”