MyBB Community Forums › MyBB Project › MyBB Project & Site Issues v
Why the MyBB community site isn't a valid xhtml?

Threaded Mode
Why the MyBB community site isn't a valid xhtml?
destroyer Offline

Former Staff
Posts: 4,712
Threads: 231
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 5
#11
2008-03-22, 03:27 PM
IE is garbage Toungue
[Image: destroyerjf8.jpg]

Give us your feedback about MyBB in this thread and become listed on the MyBB website.
Website Find
Reply
Yumi Offline

Former Staff
Posts: 4,639
Threads: 68
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 42
#12
2008-03-23, 02:39 AM
blueparukia Wrote:This site is serving xHTML 1.1 as text/html?

Not supposed to happen. You are just using xHTML 1.0 Strict....
XHTML 1.1 is strict.
XHTML 1.0 is transitional.
Website Find
Reply
blueparukia Offline
Posts: 643
Threads: 50
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 1
#13
2008-03-23, 03:06 AM (This post was last modified: 2008-03-23, 03:11 AM by blueparukia.)
Quote:XHTML 1.1 is strict.
XHTML 1.0 is transitional.

No it is not. Thats bordering on blasphemy - such as saying "Frontpage is an awesome website maker".

xHTML 1.0 can be served as both application/xhtml+xml and text/html in both strict and transitional doctypes:

xHTML Transitional Doctype:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

xHTML Strict Doctype:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

There are also doctypes for frames.

xHTML 1.1 is meant to be served only as application/xhtml+xml - which is not supported in Internet Explorer. It comes with just one doctype:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">

HTML 4.01 is only to be served as text/html, and comes with both transitional and strict doctypes:

HTML 4.01 Transitional Doctype:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">

HTML 4.01 Strict Doctype:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Regards,

BP
Find
Reply
Yumi Offline

Former Staff
Posts: 4,639
Threads: 68
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 42
#14
2008-03-23, 03:25 AM
Oh yes, you are correct. XHTML 1.1 is based off strict - I misread that part.
Website Find
Reply
SoniQuake Offline
Posts: 185
Threads: 38
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 3
#15
2009-07-01, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 2009-07-01, 10:22 AM by SoniQuake.)
Well, this community is looking [Valid] now...
Find
Reply
Martin M. Offline

Former Staff
Posts: 3,588
Threads: 54
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 7
#16
2009-07-01, 11:04 PM
The only problem with it is that the javascript isn't within <!-- // -->.
Find
Reply
Ryan Gordon Offline

Former Staff
Posts: 16,264
Threads: 579
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 39
#17
2009-07-02, 12:59 AM
(2009-07-01, 11:04 PM)Martin M. Wrote: The only problem with it is that the javascript isn't within <!-- // -->.

Yes it is - If it's not then it's not meant to be
Website Find
Reply
Martin M. Offline

Former Staff
Posts: 3,588
Threads: 54
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 7
#18
2009-07-02, 02:07 PM
(2009-07-02, 12:59 AM)Ryan Gordon Wrote:
(2009-07-01, 11:04 PM)Martin M. Wrote: The only problem with it is that the javascript isn't within <!-- // -->.

Yes it is - If it's not then it's not meant to be

No it's not, and it probably is meant to be. I don't see why it shouldn't as it's javascript.
Look at the source of the homepage.
Find
Reply
Ryan Gordon Offline

Former Staff
Posts: 16,264
Threads: 579
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 39
#19
2009-07-02, 07:23 PM
(2009-07-02, 02:07 PM)Martin M. Wrote:
(2009-07-02, 12:59 AM)Ryan Gordon Wrote:
(2009-07-01, 11:04 PM)Martin M. Wrote: The only problem with it is that the javascript isn't within <!-- // -->.

Yes it is - If it's not then it's not meant to be

No it's not, and it probably is meant to be. I don't see why it shouldn't as it's javascript.
Look at the source of the homepage.

I see proper enclosed comments where all javascript is. If there isn't don't make me waste my time while I'm on vacation trying to find out what your talking about.

Ryan
Website Find
Reply
Martin M. Offline

Former Staff
Posts: 3,588
Threads: 54
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 7
#20
2009-07-02, 10:35 PM
(2009-07-02, 07:23 PM)Ryan Gordon Wrote:
(2009-07-02, 02:07 PM)Martin M. Wrote:
(2009-07-02, 12:59 AM)Ryan Gordon Wrote:
(2009-07-01, 11:04 PM)Martin M. Wrote: The only problem with it is that the javascript isn't within <!-- // -->.

Yes it is - If it's not then it's not meant to be

No it's not, and it probably is meant to be. I don't see why it shouldn't as it's javascript.
Look at the source of the homepage.

I see proper enclosed comments where all javascript is. If there isn't don't make me waste my time while I'm on vacation trying to find out what your talking about.

Ryan

As I said it's not the forum board it's the homepage.
As the validator states it's not properly enclosed on the homepage.
I'm not trying to make you waste your time.

<script type="text/javascript">

			function CheckMultiple1(frm, name) {
				for (var i=0; i < frm.length; i++)
				{
					fldObj = frm.elements[i];
					fldId = fldObj.id;
					if (fldId) {
						var fieldnamecheck=fldObj.id.indexOf(name);
						if (fieldnamecheck != -1) {
							if (fldObj.checked) {
								return true;
							}
						}
					}
				}
				return false;
			}
		function CheckForm1(f) {
			if (f.email.value == "" || f.email.value == "[email protected]") {
				alert("Please enter your email address.");
				f.email.select();
				f.email.focus();
				return false;
			}
		
				return true;
			};
		
</script>
Find
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)