HTML version?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

HTML version?

Harvey
Curious - What version of HTML does Nabble use?

Plans to switch to version 5?
HTTPS Please!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML version?

GregChapman
Hi Harvey,

The answer to your question is in first line of the source of the page. The DOCTYPE shows:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
but I fear you are out to embarrass the good folks at Nabble as a validation check at the W3C site shows that with just your initial post on this page there were 23 errors and 21 warnings about compliance with the standard that was claimed to be used. I conclude that Nabble have not been too worried about maintaining sites that follow HTML guidelines closely and a change to HTML5 will be low on the priority list.

(Failure to deliver valid code will be part of the reason why there are sometimes complaints that something doesn't display well in browser X or Y.)
Volunteer Helper - but recommending that users move off the platform!
Once the admin for GregHelp now deleted.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML version?

Harvey
This post was updated on .
I'm not out to embarrass anyone.  

I just wondered if it would make sense to switch the bold and italics tags from
<b> and <i>
 to the html 5 versions.
HTTPS Please!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML version?

GregChapman
My "embarrass" comment was half in jest. I've had an off-forum discussion recently with another Premium Support user that would indicate I'm more of a validation zealot than most!

I'm not fully sure I understand your comment. The "b" and "i" tags are in the current draft of HTML5:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-b-element.html#the-b-element
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-i-element.html#the-i-element
but as you see, in a many cases other tags may be more appropriate - and always were, even in HTML4.01.

As with all things in HTML, it's semantics that's more importance than appearance. One should use CSS to change appearance. The trouble is that many people work entirely visually and never consider semantics.  I can believe that Nabble would believe that suggesting alternative tags to users might just cause confusion to those only used to considering the visual impact.
Volunteer Helper - but recommending that users move off the platform!
Once the admin for GregHelp now deleted.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML version?

Hugo <Nabble>
We may move into HTML5 in the future, but we still have a long road before that. Besides that, only the new versions of IE accept HTML5 and we still have a bunch of users with the old versions. So waiting a bit more is not the worst thing to do.

About validation errors in the html source, this is not our priority. Google doesn't use this type of validation as a quality metric because there are many great sites out there that don't validate, so we prefer to invest our time in simplicity, features and performance.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: HTML version?

Harvey
When I had my blog on blogger (google) there were over 500 errors on my homepage. With Wordpress it is down to less than twenty.

For the heck of it I ran the w3c validator on my forum homepage.

I got 28 errors and most of them were:

NET-enabling start-tag requires SHORTTAG YES

not sure what that is.
HTTPS Please!