w3c standard compliance

Development-related discussion, including bundled plugins
Balkoth
Bear Rating Trainee
Bear Rating Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Sep 2008, 18:40

w3c standard compliance

Postby Balkoth » 21 Sep 2008, 19:01

Hello,

I discovered Tiny Tiny RSS a few days ago and it is great ! I use it as my main RSS reader now.

Since I'm kind of a standard zealot, I have made a patch to make tt-rss w3c compliant.
It is based on the 1.2.27 release.

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby fox » 21 Sep 2008, 21:38

This looks straightforward enough. Patched into trunk, thanks.

InspirationDate
Bear Rating Trainee
Bear Rating Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 06:40

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby InspirationDate » 23 Sep 2008, 20:25

since we're being zealots :), self closing tags really should have a space before the slash. :wink:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_2

that said, i've never had a problem without the space.

Balkoth
Bear Rating Trainee
Bear Rating Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Sep 2008, 18:40

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby Balkoth » 23 Sep 2008, 20:43

I didn't know that, it always pass the validator with or without the space. Now I will add it, thanks :wink:
Also, I noticed an error in tt-rss.css (line 2122): font-weight : medium; is not a valid property and should be replaced with font-weight : normal;

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby fox » 23 Sep 2008, 21:49

You people and your nitpicking! :D OK, fixed the CSS thing.

yuryzh
Bear Rating Trainee
Bear Rating Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 20 Nov 2008, 16:57

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby yuryzh » 01 Dec 2008, 13:23

HTML validation error: tt-rss.php, line 249

Code: Select all

<img src="images/resize_handle_horiz.png" id="resize-handle"
         onmouseover="enable_resize(true)" onmouseout="enable_resize(false)"
         alt="">

Error: End tag for ... omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified
Cause: You may have neglected to close an element, or perhaps you meant to "self-close" an element, that is, ending it with "/>" instead of ">".

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby fox » 01 Dec 2008, 13:50

I can fix it, but it is actually quite pointless. Validator won't be able to get to the majority of code tt-rss generates (it can only try to parse static stuff like tt-rss.php, the bulk of stuff is runtime-generated and requires ajax) so it doesn't actually have any practical value - well, unless you like to load tt-rss.php in the validator for some reason.

Balkoth
Bear Rating Trainee
Bear Rating Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Sep 2008, 18:40

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby Balkoth » 03 Dec 2008, 10:15

It seems you don't understand what standards are for.
The purpose of using standards is not to make your code pass the validator.
Instead, the validator is a tool to help you write valid code. Think of it as a debugger.

Standards are primarily aimed to provide interoperability and accessibility.
As a bonus, you gain performance and easier maintenance.

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby fox » 03 Dec 2008, 11:41

It seems that instead of trying to lecture me on the point of standards you should pay more attention to what I was actually saying. The point is that fixing tags in about 2 KB of static html code in tt-rss is pointless - unless your goal is to make the validator (seemingly) happy to satisfy some weird geeky W3C button fetish - if you wan't to be serious about it, you have to dive into the dynamic code.

Anyway... If you want my opinion, I don't understand what W3Cs vague "it should be kinda like that, probably, but maybe not" crap is for. Well, except for providing the bottomless well of confusion. But I can tell you that fanboy-perpetuated "interoperability and accessibility" bullshit certainly wasn't a goal - otherwise they would've bothered to be specific in their writing or at least provided a reference implementation so people would actually know what the fuck they meant.

I mean, RS-232 is a standard. Calling anything that W3C had spewed out a "standard" is a horrible joke. If they were in charge of anything actually important you'd be pining for a universally compatible fucking serial port right now.

NB: I've been coding HTML on-and-off for about eleven years. You really don't want to get me started on the ever continuing trainwreck of "standards" on the web.

Balkoth
Bear Rating Trainee
Bear Rating Trainee
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Sep 2008, 18:40

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby Balkoth » 05 Dec 2008, 01:10

fox wrote:I can fix it, but it is actually quite pointless. Validator won't be able to get to the majority of code tt-rss generates (it can only try to parse static stuff like tt-rss.php, the bulk of stuff is runtime-generated and requires ajax) so it doesn't actually have any practical value - well, unless you like to load tt-rss.php in the validator for some reason.

I still understand this as "Fixing code that can't be seen by validator is pointless". Which is quite untrue.
This is why I thought you didn't know about standards benefits.

My point of view, which may be idealistic, is that standards are good for the web and should be more widely used. Thus, I advocate them whenever I can.
fox wrote:I don't understand what W3Cs vague "it should be kinda like that, probably, but maybe not" crap is for

I don't know what you're talking about. Pick a DTD, preferably a strict one - it should be clear enough what you are allowed to do or not.
In my opinion, confusion rather come from browsers that display something no matter the number of errors they found. I mean, with any non web-oriented language, when there's an error your program simply doesn't run. Why is it not the case with HTML/CSS ? I have no idea.

I've been coding XHTML for about seven years. I know from experience that writing and maintaining standard code is quite easy, while working with old code - say developed for IE - can be a nightmare. When content and presentation are mixed - <b>, <i>, <u> tags, inline css, table layouts, deprecated attributes, ... it's very time-consuming to find and modify something. While it is only a matter of seconds to change/add a few CSS rules, providing your pages are well structured.

InspirationDate
Bear Rating Trainee
Bear Rating Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 06:40

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby InspirationDate » 05 Dec 2008, 06:26

dude, give up. i've been watching the feed of this forum long enough to know not to push something like this. i'm a standardista too but it's his project. like you said, in reality, poorly coded html isn't much of a problem. if it begins to be... well then fox can deal with it then.

User avatar
fox
^ me reading your posts ^
Posts: 6318
Joined: 27 Aug 2005, 22:53
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: w3c standard compliance

Postby fox » 05 Dec 2008, 11:41

Balkoth wrote:I still understand this as "Fixing code that can't be seen by validator is pointless". Which is quite untrue.


I have said no such thing.

I don't know what you're talking about. Pick a DTD, preferably a strict one - it should be clear enough what you are allowed to do or not.


Like I said - the only people who preach "web standards" are those who don't really know WTF they are talking about. Implementation ambiguity in W3C "standards" can't be fixed by a doctype. The "standards" are fundamentally broken in this regard.

InspirationDate, ah, you had to post and ruin everything. :D


Return to “Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests