herme3 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I thought that some of the people who believe all web sites should strictly follow the web standards would be interested to see these links: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.scienceforums.net http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.spreadfirefox.com http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.microsoft.com http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.msn.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeonBlack Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 Aww... PWNED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakdos Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I thought that some of the people who believe all web sites should strictly follow the web standards would be interested to see these links: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.scienceforums.net http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.spreadfirefox.com http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.scienceforums.net < because SFN is just a collection of PHP scripts and MySQL databases it won't validate http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.spreadfirefox.com < Remember that spreadfirefox.com is NOT affiliated with the Mozilla foundation in any way, so if you have a suggest that you talk to their webmaster about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 ...because SFN is just a collection of PHP scripts and MySQL databases it won't validate ...because Internet Explorer is just a collection of proprietary code that does not follow the web standards, it won't validate. Nobody seems to mind, do they? Remember that spreadfirefox.com is NOT affiliated with the Mozilla foundation in any way, so if you have a suggest that you talk to their webmaster about that Who said that spreadfirefox.com isn't affiliated with Mozilla? It says at the bottom of the page, "hosting provided by Mozilla Foundation." Also, the spreadfirefox.com FAQs say: Who runs SpreadFirefox? The core sfx team consists of: Blake Ross helped create Firefox and thinks it's time we brought this thing to the masses. If Firefox doesn't work, he's the guy to blame. Asa Dotzler is the Firefox QA lead. If you find a problem with Firefox, it's his fault for not spotting it. Rafael Ebron is the Firefox marketing lead at the Mozilla Foundation. If someone in your neighborhood hasn't heard of Firefox, you should blame him (well, and yourself!). Ian Hayward is SFX Admin and community lead contibutor who's company manitains spreadfirefox.com for free, if it breaks it's his fault! Ian's company also produces some sweet Firefox extensions. Also, I find it interesting that many people use the spreadfirefox.com buttons as advertisements while they are talking about how important the web standards are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I thought that some of the people who believe all web sites should strictly follow the web standards would be interested to see these links: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.scienceforums.net Blame vB's designers' date=' not SFN. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.spreadfirefox.com I was under the impression they were undergoing a redesign and so the code wasn't final. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.microsoft.com Microsoft never cared about standards. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.msn.com See above. because SFN is just a collection of PHP scripts and MySQL databases it won't validate No, it's because the template designers (vBulletin's designers) didn't care about it. The default templates are bloated, and when dave made his modifications to it, those were based on the default template. herme3: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMain_Page One of the most visited websites in the world (31st, by Alexa's count) Who said that spreadfirefox.com isn't affiliated with Mozilla? It says at the bottom of the page, "hosting provided by Mozilla Foundation." Also, the spreadfirefox.com FAQs say: That doesn't mean it's officially sponsored. My website may be created by me, but that doesn't mean it's affiliated with anyone I work for. ...because Internet Explorer is just a collection of proprietary code that does not follow the web standards, it won't validate. Not a valid argument. Internet Explorer does not create HTML content by itself (like vB) so you can't compare it to vB. And Schrodngr was wrong, anyways. (See above) Also, I find it interesting that many people use the spreadfirefox.com buttons as advertisements while they are talking about how important the web standards are. Probably because they advertise Firefox, which has good standards support, and not spreadfirefox.com itself. And remember, Mozilla.com validates and that's the official website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted January 16, 2006 Author Share Posted January 16, 2006 Microsoft never cared about standards. I don't think you read the link correctly. Both Microsoft.com and MSN are 100% compatible with the web standards. It is very rare to find a web site that is passes the test. Even most of my web sites have a couple errors on them. No, it's because the template designers (vBulletin's designers) didn't care about it. The default templates are bloated, and when dave made his modifications to it, those were based on the default template. Most of the SFN Admins seem to be very knowledgeable at web sites and programming. Can they fix the errors? That doesn't mean it's officially sponsored. My website may be created by me, but that doesn't mean it's affiliated with anyone I work for. We aren't talking about a few people that work for Mozilla. We are talking about some of the top people in the company. Let's say that Bill Gates, some of the top Microsoft managers, and some of the top Microsoft developers decide to start a gang. They choose some guy that doesn't work for Microsoft to lead the gang. They use "Microsoft" as part of the gang's name and they begin burning down the office buildings of Microsoft's competitors. Not all of Microsoft's employees would be involved in this gang, but wouldn't most people blame Microsoft for what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 I don't think you read the link correctly. Both Microsoft.com and MSN are 100% compatible with the web standards. It is very rare to find a web site that is passes the test. Even most of my web sites have a couple errors on them. Oh do get off your high horse. Notice that the website is compliant with HTML 4 Transitional, which is far easier to comply with than XHTML 1.0 Transitional. Most of the SFN Admins seem to be very knowledgeable at web sites and programming. Can they fix the errors? For the record, vB's templates are actually 100% compliant with XHTML 1.0 Transitional. The errors are actually my doing, and my complete lack of checking that the pages still complied. If you're going to be so silly about it, then I will fix the appropriate templates and you can be happy that you pointed out a couple of flaws at SFN. Woohoo. ...because Internet Explorer is just a collection of proprietary code that does not follow the web standards, it won't validate. Nobody seems to mind, do they? Actually quite a few people do, myself included. IE is one of the most buggy, security riddled, non-standards compliant, poorly coded programs that I've ever encountered. Moreover, the complete lack of security is induced by the fact that MS has basically integrated the browser into the OS simply to get around being fined through the nose over and over again due to immoral business practices. Now you seem to like the fact that you could simply visit a webpage and have your computer exploited through numerous methods and means. That's fair enough. However, I am just about sick and tired of your IE fanboy attitude. Yes, quite a few of us support Firefox around here (and that's to be expected). However, we don't keep posting threads on it simply for the pleasure of winding everybody up and generally aggrovating the community. This is what, the fifth thread on this now? Seriously, grow up. If you want to support IE, fine. Lots of other people do, and I have no problem with that. However, if you're going to refuse to listen to people and rebutt every useful piece of advice give to you, then you're no better than Zarkov. So I'm closing this thread right now, since there's just no point in one more useless argument on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts