W3C Validation Service

[Reinhard]

Is there any intention to make the code of Meteotemplate passing the W3C Validation Service green?

I ask, because this is one point that I do not want to do an update to V17. It was hard work to eliminate warnings and errors out. And I do not want to do this work again on every new version of MT.

This is only a question, maybe correct markup is not so important for others. For me it is quite fine to have at least the Homepage and the most used PlugIns (by far not all, indeed!) in error-free HTML5. What do you think?

[Jachym]

Hi Reinhard,
I went into quite some detail about this once on the wxforum.net about 2yrs ago. The answer is yes and no.

Will MT be 100% W3C valid? No. Is there intention to do so? No

Why? Simply because as many people will confirm to you, including many programmers I talked to - W3C is not 100% right. It makes mistakes, it interprets some things incorrectly and shows them as errors or does not understand them. There are also situations where using something in a rather unconventional way is intentional, not an error, and does not in any way affect the functionality of the page. If a page is error free in the console, shows ok in browsers and is working exactly as it should, thats what I call a good page. Not trying to make compromises only to get some W3C valid stamp. It is outdated.

[Reinhard]

Jachym,
thanks for your honest answer. Much appreciated!

[Jachym]

Let me give you an example.

W3C does not like when you have <style> tags in the page body, it insists on having this at the top.
However lets look at the example of meteotemplate. Meteotemplate homepage is made up from blocks, is loading dynamically and so some style elements, if they are included in different scripts, which are inserted into the original, end up in the middle of the code.
The only reason for having style elements at the top is because the code is cleaner, and I agree with that. However if I wanted to solve this problem, the page would have to be loading as one piece.
So it was a question of either clean code, or maybe 5-10 times faster loading with absolutely no effect in terms of functionality.
I chose the speed and thats just one example why W3C will not "like" Meteotemplate.

[Jachym]

Just to give you an idea, I made a test:

google.com: 23 errors
microsoft.com: 112 errors
facebook.com: 27 errors
twitter.com: 28 errors
amazon.com: 249 errors
meteotemplate.com: 1 error



It really is obsolete to assess a page based on W3C

[Reinhard]

6 warnings, 92 errors ....

[Jachym]

Funny... and this just shows that even this validation is inconsistent... it really is useless

[Jeffm5690]

Just to give you an idea, I made a test:

google.com: 23 errors
microsoft.com: 112 errors
facebook.com: 27 errors
twitter.com: 28 errors
amazon.com: 249 errors
meteotemplate.com: 1 error



It really is obsolete to assess a page based on W3C

Lol. Thanks for the comparison Jachym!