I notice when I click the XHTML link at the bottom of the page that most pages have a large number of XHTML errors. (NewTopic page has 14.) On the bright side, CSS seems OK.
I will see if I have time later today to have a look, it would be useful to know if the current our.umbraco.org forum has changed a lot from the original package or if patches are worth creating / likely to actually be applied?
Actually the uforum package is a fork of the our.umbraco site, and is not the base for the ongoing development of this site, so a patch submission would not fix the problem :-)
I agree it's certainly more difficult to keep the site valid with UGC, but if all the content that is entered into the comment box is HTML encoded, surely it's actually not that difficult? As for the generic errors, as we are all developing solutions based on Umbraco, when a tag line like the one below is used for the platform I tend to agree it is important to ensure the code validates. Looking at the source, it's only a few simple errors so I am sure it could be fixed quite quickly when someone gets the time :)
The main difficulty with UGC is that I've never come across a web-based WYSIWYG editor that will produce 100% compliant code 100% of the time. TinyMCE is great and it usually produces valid code but it's not always the case - tags can get messed around and nested inappropriately etc and the validation can be easily lost.
Forum not generating valid XHTML
I notice when I click the XHTML link at the bottom of the page that most pages have a large number of XHTML errors. (NewTopic page has 14.) On the bright side, CSS seems OK.
Very good point Francis, maybe some can have a look at the original source and fix these issues and submit a patch?
http://uforum.codeplex.com/
I will see if I have time later today to have a look, it would be useful to know if the current our.umbraco.org forum has changed a lot from the original package or if patches are worth creating / likely to actually be applied?
Actually the uforum package is a fork of the our.umbraco site, and is not the base for the ongoing development of this site, so a patch submission would not fix the problem :-)
It looks like it's down to you Morten, unless you'd like a hand, I'd be happy to contribute :)
A good read on the subject -> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
Validation is just a tool, but I guess when you have links at the bottom of the page it's best to follow through on the claims!
It's tough and unneccessary to a keep a UGC site valid - I'd just remove the links.
Dan
Hi Dan,
I agree it's certainly more difficult to keep the site valid with UGC, but if all the content that is entered into the comment box is HTML encoded, surely it's actually not that difficult? As for the generic errors, as we are all developing solutions based on Umbraco, when a tag line like the one below is used for the platform I tend to agree it is important to ensure the code validates. Looking at the source, it's only a few simple errors so I am sure it could be fixed quite quickly when someone gets the time :)
Chris
The main difficulty with UGC is that I've never come across a web-based WYSIWYG editor that will produce 100% compliant code 100% of the time. TinyMCE is great and it usually produces valid code but it's not always the case - tags can get messed around and nested inappropriately etc and the validation can be easily lost.
I agree that _some_ things can be fixed easily (such as an <img src="" > with no ending slash).
Will take a look at it when I get a quiet night :)
is working on a reply...
This forum is in read-only mode while we transition to the new forum.
You can continue this topic on the new forum by tapping the "Continue discussion" link below.