Website violates the w3c standards.

[bigkim100]

This website violates the w3c standards: [Invalid] Markup Validation of https://www.electro-tech-online.com/ - W3C Markup Validator

Dont worry Electro, ....Ill send you a cake with a file in it to your prison cell when they haul you off.

Unfortunatly poor Nigel is far too pretty to stay safe in prison tho.

 

[Krumlink]

Standards: W3C

You do realize that you are basically losing 41% probable income because you want to be W3C compliant right? So if you have 100 dollars, you would lose 41 dollars... I can use more analogies if needed.

 

[Triode]

For that matter, a lot of people are going to be at work, or otherwise at a computer where they can't choose their browser.

 

[Krumlink]

I wrote my website according to the W3 standards and it doesn't work in Internet Explorer. The bug is in Internet Explorer not my website.

The bug is your (enter negative word here) in not understanding that about 41% of users use internet explorer.

Oh and btw 1y5zdzjy:microsoft>linux

 

[duffy]

These "compliance" things are just a load of scare tactics from out-of-work web developers.

As soon as you put up a website, a bunch of parasites come crawling out of the woodwork and send you email telling you everything's wrong and you should hire them to fix it. It's just another scam.

 

[3v0]

The bug is your (enter negative word here) in not understanding that about 41% of users use internet explorer.

Oh and btw 1y5zdzjy:microsoft>linux

Might does not make right in this case. Microsoft refusal to follow standards has been a ponderous drag on anyone who has designed a web site for both IE and real browsers. IMHO IE has retarded the advancement of the web by as much as a decade.

These "compliance" things are just a load of scare tactics from out-of-work web developers.

I feel the goal of compliance is websites that work, but I do agree that the compliance issue is perverted for profit.

Here site complies makes little difference to anyone but the people who write and sell the forum software. They are paid to do so. If vBulletin/JetSoft not care enough people will not buy the software.

 

[Torben]

The bug is your (enter negative word here) in not understanding that about 41% of users use internet explorer.

With you so far. This is true--depending upon which report you're reading. But yeah, ignoring IE7 is probably not the greatest idea at this point.

Oh and btw 1y5zdzjy:microsoft>linux

Um, no. This is a supportable argument from a desktop market share viewpoint, but not from a technical viewpoint, nor from the viewpoint of server share. Lots of people drink the Redmond Kool-Aid, but that doesn't mean that it's a better product.


Torben

 

[Torben]

I feel the goal of compliance is websites that work, but I do agree that the compliance issue is perverted for profit.

Here site complies makes little difference to anyone but the people who write and sell the forum software. They are paid to do so. If vBulletin/JetSoft not care enough people will not buy the software.

Agreed, to a point. There are lots of keeners out there who offer to help a site achieve compliance, but not all of them are the web equivalent of ambulance chasers. Some honestly want to help and will do the work pro bono (I've been known to do this).

But it's true that in a case such as this, full compliance will not help the forum greatly as the main aim of such a site's coding is that it be readable to the greatest number of viewers possible. Compliance is good if parseability is desired but for a site like this, that isn't really an issue. The RSS feed is really the only thing that needs to be automatically machine-readable by anything other than browsers, and that *is* valid.

I'm thinking that the OP is much like I was back in the early-to-mid-90s when I first learned to code for the web: a keener who has learned something and winds up with a form of target fixation, thinking that compliance is not only an honourable goal (which it certainly is) but that it's actually the only worthwhile goal (which it certainly is not).

From what I've seen of the OP's site it's simply a matter of poor coding that it's not viewable in IE7 anyway. The problem is solvable and it should be possible to code such a simple site so that it is both compliant and viewable in all major browsers. That's a pretty low high horse to ride.


Torben

 

[Torben]

Might does not make right in this case. Microsoft refusal to follow standards has been a ponderous drag on anyone who has designed a web site for both IE and real browsers. IMHO IE has retarded the advancement of the web by as much as a decade.

Yes yes yes yes.


Torben

 

[Hero999]

IMHO IE has retarded the advancement of the web by as much as a decade.

That's true.

One of my biggest gripes is IE not supporting SVG, without having to download a separate plug in, is pretty retarded.

Scalable Vector Graphics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not even like no site uses SVG.Wikipedia uses it a lot but has to include PNG equivalents for MSIE users. Unfortunately the PNG versions aren't always detailed enough so if you don't have the plugin installed or a better browser on your computer then you're stuck.

 

[Krumlink]

With you so far. This is true--depending upon which report you're reading. But yeah, ignoring IE7 is probably not the greatest idea at this point.



Um, no. This is a supportable argument from a desktop market share viewpoint, but not from a technical viewpoint, nor from the viewpoint of server share, nor from a technical viewpoint. Lots of people drink the Redmond Kool-Aid, but that doesn't mean that it's a better product.


Torben

The microsoft thing was to razz him I really dont care about microsoft, i just like xp.

 

[Torben]

The microsoft thing was to razz him I really dont care about microsoft, i just like xp.

Yeah, XP wasn't bad, all things considered.

Vista on the other hand. . .well, I'll leave that alone for now.


Torben

 

[3v0]

XP was not so swift for the first few years. I recall people stuck with 2000 or even 98.

Yeah, XP wasn't bad, all things considered.

Vista on the other hand. . .well, I'll leave that alone for now.


Torben

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Yeah, XP wasn't bad, all things considered.

Vista on the other hand. . .well, I'll leave that alone for now.

I've been very happy with Vista, my new home machine runs it, and we have two Vaio laptops - all have been trouble free.

 

[Hero999]

I love this anti-IE page, it's a bit out of date but it's still good.
Anti-IE Buttons

Here's my favourite anti-IE button.
**broken link removed**

 

[Triode]

I don't really get how anyone manages to hate IE that much, or any browser for that matter, I can see liking one more than another, but caring that much either way about a web browser seems very...unhealthy.

 

[killivolt]

I don't really get how anyone manages to hate IE that much, or any browser for that matter, I can see liking one more than another, but caring that much either way about a web browser seems very...unhealthy.

I have to depend on 2 different browsers to accomplish monitoring of my MCU bridges and H.323 QOS protocols. If the software needed to do your job depended on a working browser you would care a lot. Unfortunately most company's with expensive software interphases just go with Windblow and exploder because it saves them dollars in the end plus they can move forward with their development quicker then just debug it with Microsoft hands and insider secrets.

They in some ways just adopt the same mentality too! and like Microsoft who repeatedly sends out buggy systems and let consumers do the beta testing ? Go figure. No one dares challenge them.

kv

 

[Triode]

I can understand that being bothersome, but even though I have to work with very crapy 2D cad software because it is bundled in with my companies state of the art 3D solid modeling software, I'm not about to make a site with hundreds of pages about why it sucks and a bunch of little icons declaring it evil and all who use it retarded.

 

[3v0]

The 2d software sucks because it is not the main focus of the company. Maybe they lack the dollars to do a better job. Whatever.

But MS has the dollars and is surely spending them. The point is they refuse to honor the standards.

Very different.

 

[Torben]

I can understand that being bothersome, but even though I have to work with very crapy 2D cad software because it is bundled in with my companies state of the art 3D solid modeling software, I'm not about to make a site with hundreds of pages about why it sucks and a bunch of little icons declaring it evil and all who use it retarded.

Then I suspect you haven't spent the better part of the past 16 years coding for the web and consistently finding that the only browser out there which does not adhere to standards comes from the one company which should definitely have the resources to make their browser perform properly.

The problem isn't even that IE doesn't do things properly--the real sticking point is that MS does this *on purpose*. They know that they have a captive audience: those who get Windows shipped on their machines with no option, and who therefore get IE in the deal. They want to keep as much software MS-focussed as possible, and so they write in little extensions and peculiarities which are well-understood by other MS products, but which are not available to third parties and which break compatibility with standards-compliant software. (For that matter, they do this with their document formats and APIs as well).

It's a business decision, not a technical one, and amounts to anti-competitive business practice. Plus, they keep making boneheaded decisions such as rendering Outlook 07's HTML email using the *shudder* Word engine. (WTF?!?!) Here's a blog post from a co-worker outlining this particular brilliant idea: **broken link removed**


Regards,

Torben