Honestly, why should I bother?
I've spent hours getting pages to validate in the past. Considering it now and I don't really see the point. Gotta choose a doc type, then make sure everything is written just right...

Am I waisting my time?

No, it shows that the author cares about compatibility, and cares for the quality of the page presented to the client.

Lemme put it this way (not to offend anyone):

If someone made a memorial page for VT casualties, would you rather it look like ****, or have hard work put into it, and it working across the board, and look professional?

it does more than just show someone cares, it assures your pages will work in the majority of browsers, and I'm quite sure is a big big plus in search indexing.

My sites are 100% compatible in every browser. I've test them in every environment possible, and I do care. The only reason I'd consider it is for indexing, but search engines index things great.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webhostingtalk.com%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline
That doesn't mean WHT(vBulletin) doesn't care...?

let's take a look. what are one or more of the domains you're talking about?

I don't worry about compatibility and validating personally, it is just not worth my time / effort.

I would rather churn out content quickly that works well in Firefox, if it looks a little odd in IE than I don't really care... because IE users don't really care either.

if it looks a little odd in IE than I don't really care...
You should care.
According to the most recent statistics, IE still accounts for over 90% of browsers out there.
To not care is bloody minded and short sighted.
There's no doubt that IE is a pain in the neck for designers, but until it ceases to be valid, not to you, but in the eyes of the majority of users, can you really afford to ignore it?
I'm a Mac user, so, for me, a disdain for IE is ingrained, but I'm realistic enough to realize it can't be ignored.

I don't worry about compatibility and validating personally, it is just not worth my time / effort.

I would rather churn out content quickly that works well in Firefox, if it looks a little odd in IE than I don't really care... because IE users don't really care either.

Likely the worst rationalization of refusal to be compliant EVER posted.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webhostingtalk.com%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline
That doesn't mean WHT(vBulletin) doesn't care...?Yes, that's what this means. It means vBulletin doesn't care enough to build the best possible product. Would it surprise you to learn that there are a handful of prominent issues within vBulletin when it comes to alternative/assistive browsing devices, and that people with certain visual disabilities have a more difficult time than normal with vB?

Validation may or may not solve the problems, but at least if you're using a common markup set, you can rule out the use of non-standard code, and other developers can jump in and help more readily, since everyone's on the same page. It makes it difficult for people within an industry with standards to participate in meaningful discussions about a site that shuns those standards.

Maybe this is the point: "Develop/design sites from the beginning with validation in mind"..?

So for now, I won't get my current sites validating, but in the future when I do redesign then, I will. Even though I'm a perfectionist, the amount of work it would take with my current sites just isn't worth it just for w3.org to sign off on it.

Hmm, well validation is good. You conform to standards in the pages you design/create. So if the entire world suddenly decided to use xhtml strict only, then all those sites that conform to that standard will not be broken.

Of course that would mean my latest project site would not conform to strict either. :D

Maybe this is the point: "Develop/design sites from the beginning with validation in mind"..?

So for now, I won't get my current sites validating, but in the future when I do redesign then, I will. Even though I'm a perfectionist, the amount of work it would take with my current sites just isn't worth it just for w3.org to sign off on it.



No, they have a method for fixing broken sites (that don't validate) it's called transitional.

For the most part, I usually code my sites in xhtml transitional. I just don't see myself getting used to strict anytime soon. So it wouldn't be too hard to get your site into transitional validate skshost.

For the most part, I usually code my sites in xhtml transitional. I just don't see myself getting used to strict anytime soon. So it wouldn't be too hard to get your site into transitional validate skshost.

I'll try it, thanks!

Transitional doctypes are worse than useless - they are dangerous, because they allow you to use stylistic HTML, instead of mandating proper separation of structure from style. This in turn allows you to create sites that defy certain accessibility standards found in WAI documentation.

Transitional markup came about as the "answer" to the question of what developers were supposed to do 9-10 years ago when the first moved toward proper markup techniques were first introduced. It should not be used today.

Well that is true, but for some of us with little free time to change our coding habits, it becomes a pain if we were suddenly forced to conform to a standard we view as fairly new.

I will of course start coding in xhtml strict as soon as I fully understand what isn't or is allowed.

I'm now using Transitional, and it was actually easy to fix minor errors, but I am face with many similar to this that I cannot resolve:

"end tag for element "TD" which is not open.
</td></tr></table>"

This makes no sense to me, as the tag is in fact open.
Otherwise Every page of my site would validate.

Well that is true, but for some of us with little free time to change our coding habits, it becomes a pain if we were suddenly forced to conform to a standard we view as fairly new.

I will of course start coding in xhtml strict as soon as I fully understand what isn't or is allowed.http://www.zvon.org/xxl/xhtmlReference/Output/comparison.html

There you go - a concise list of the differences between transitional and strict markup. I guarantee you 90% of that list consists of stuff you're not using anyway. Learn the last 10% and you'll have Strict down.

Now you can finally ditch transitional markup. Wasn't that easy? :)

I'm now using Transitional, and it was actually easy to fix minor errors, but I am face with many similar to this that I cannot resolve:

"end tag for element "TD" which is not open.
</td></tr></table>"

This makes no sense to me, as the tag is in fact open.
Otherwise Every page of my site would validate.

Anyone have any ideas?

first off until you post the whole table code or at least that row it's not possible to figure it out.

Wups, too late to edit my post. Well here's the result after some research:

It's correct (the error).

you pmd me your page so i went and looked. you have this


</td></tr></table>
</td></tr></table>


Which is not valid because there's no other table open for the second row to close.

I recoded your page and it now passes validation. I PMd you the link.

Just so you know, it's next to impossible to see problems when you have NO indents and no page structure to follow. Those indents are so you can look directly down and see the corresponding tag and know exactly where you are. it's really simple once you get use to it.

Your code isn't far off as it was. But it's a cascading error. Because of that error listed above, once it's fixed another line below fails, etc etc. it takes about 5 times to do it using the validator, but once to see it when it's indented correctly.

FYI the link I sent you has the code formatted with the indents so you can easily see how things begin and end.

go to this page: http://validator.w3.org/ and paste the contents of that file in there and you'll see it validates.

Then backup your existing page, paste that code in and you'll see it looks the same :)

It took some time, but I was able to get my recent site validated. I was wrong though, it was worth the time for the peace of mind.

Yeah. I always wanted to know why it was need too. Now I know. Thanks.

Just so you know, it's next to impossible to see problems when you have NO indents and no page structure to follow. Those indents are so you can look directly down and see the corresponding tag and know exactly where you are. it's really simple once you get use to it.

:)

More best practice...

The point of HTML validation is to increase cross browser compatibility.

That doesn't mean WHT(vBulletin) doesn't care...?
Webhostingtalk does care and it recently had this skin recoded into valid XHTML / CSS along with the upgrade. If you look closely, all of the errors are caused by the "&" character in the AD code, not the skin itself. It should be "&amp;" anyways.

I don't worry about compatibility and validating personally, it is just not worth my time / effort.

I would rather churn out content quickly that works well in Firefox, if it looks a little odd in IE than I don't really care... because IE users don't really care either.

True , many websites do not care 100% valdiation.

I checked, and there's many websites that don't validate. It's funny when you see those "big bad company's" flaws. Using "&amp;" fixed many errors for me personally. Oh, and disabling "session.use_trans_sid".

Who disables cookies on their browser anyway?

I checked, and there's many websites that don't validate. It's funny when you see those "big bad company's" flaws. Using "&amp;" fixed many errors for me personally.True, but 8-10 years ago, there were practically none that validated. Today the numbers are fast rising in the validation department. Big Web sites are typically the last ones to get there, because of the size of the task involved. It's better and more accurate to look at the trends, not the numbers you get from a snapshot ;)

Who disables cookies on their browser anyway?Anyone who sets their browser security high may have cookies disabled without really knowing this is what they've done. Think about how many people use the Internet, don't know much about computers, and simply figure high security is better.

Also, many corporate IT departments will lock down portions of their associates' browsers and set security levels high to protect their hardware. So you might have tens or even hundreds of thousands of people browsing with cookies limited or disabled just from one company.

That last statement is very true.

I've mananged many migrations and especially on large corporate networks they have a tendency to set your security in your profiles for you, and they're removed via policy so you can't change them back. It's good practice for over all network protection, and I agree with it.

Well I could enable/disable "session.use_trans_sid" via a PHP script based on whether or not the visitor has cookies. Although that would be a great mod, it would put me back to "non-validation" status, then I'd be face with the possible session ID's being indexed by search engines.

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too. I think where I'm at is the best possible for now, unless others have suggestions?

You are talking about &'s PHP adds when it appends session id thingy to the urls.
Try adding this in .htaccess

php_value arg_separator.output &amp;