SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 62 of 62
  1. #51
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by glenngould View Post
    I don't know why but I guess happycog guys do not think they are wrong by serving XHTML as text/html to all user-agents.
    It's not wrong, provided it still works when served as an application of XML. It's just pointless, and nothing I'd brag about.

    Quote Originally Posted by glenngould View Post
    In fact they also think IE supports XHTML which I disagree.
    This is not a matter of opinion, but of verifiable, objective facts. No version of IE supports XHTML in any way, shape or form. It does support invalid HTML, though, which is what saves all those purported 'XHTML' sites.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  2. #52
    SitePoint Guru glenngould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by stomme Poes View Post
    i Don't Know Why But I Guess Happycog Guys Do Not Think They Are Wrong By Serving Xhtml As Text/html To All User-agents. In Fact They Also Think Ie Supports Xhtml Which I Disagree.
    From What I Heard, And This Is Part Of The Problem Of The Stickers/badges, Happycog Used To Be Valid. Did That Site Pass Ownership?
    happycog.com still validates as XHTML Strict. We were talking about something else.
    Tweep List adds an avatar menu to Twitter (open source)
    Word Stats shows your most used words on Twitter

  3. #53
    Keep Moving Forward gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    Shaun(OfTheDead)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Trinidad
    Posts
    3,746
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No.




    Trying to fill the unforgiving minute
    with sixty seconds' worth of distance run.

    Update on Sitepoint's Migration to Discourse

  4. #54
    SitePoint Addict Newviewit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you are a professional company there is no need for vanity stickers. The work should always be 100% compliant.
    UNLIMITED Domains - UNLIMITED Disk Space - UNLIMITED Bandwidth
    *Black Friday - Website Hosting Deal of The Year - 50% OFF!

  5. #55
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Black Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,029
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newviewit View Post
    If you are a professional company there is no need for vanity stickers. The work should always be 100% compliant.
    Point taken. If you're compliant and you're bragging about it, you look unprofessional. If you're not compliant and you're bragging about being compliant, you look incompetent. (Scratch that: you ARE incompetent.)

  6. #56
    Hibernator YuriKolovsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Malaga, Spain
    Posts
    1,072
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    no, i dont have valid html strikers on my site.

  7. #57
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mittineague View Post
    So it seems the legal image choices are blue, gold, non-derivative, and none
    If I'm not mistaken (someone please correct me if I am), I believe that only involves taking the badges that they provide and changing the colors, while keeping the same design.

    I believe if you create your own then you can do whatever you want with it. Here is the badge I use: http://www.htmlblox.com/images/w3c_html.png

    There is no way that could be confused with the official one, but it still uses a link to the validator as the original. From my reading of their wording, what I did is still okay, if not, someone please let me know.

    (And yes, I remember way back when that they did used to allow you to change the colors as well)

  8. #58
    Programming Team silver trophybronze trophy
    Mittineague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Springfield, Massachusetts
    Posts
    17,255
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    IANAL, but I would consider that as a non-derivative image. Some similarity true, but original enough to not be confused with the w3c's branding.

  9. #59
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, worst case scenario would likely be they send me an email saying they don't like it and I take it down. =p

  10. #60
    SitePoint Member aliceslipped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Massillon, OH
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by samanime View Post
    I believe if you create your own then you can do whatever you want with it.


    There is no way that could be confused with the official one, but it still uses a link to the validator as the original. From my reading of their wording, what I did is still okay, if not, someone please let me know.
    I have seen a couple of people do that, and I like it better. That way, it blends in with the colors/style of your site and doesn't look like you're gloating with a huge, gold sticker that says, "I AM RIGHT." It is discreet, but still lets the user and other developers know that your code is standards compliant. I think it is important to let people know that your code is standards compliant because so many people's code isn't.
    (web development) blogging:
    never before have so many people had so little to say to so few
    {Lindsey Campbell
    ; Web Design & Development; SEO; Awesome;}

  11. #61
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    no i do not

  12. #62
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Correct, that is the general consensus point of view. I think most people on here would agree with what you have said. Though how easy your code is to read is more down to personal preference as opposed to something which is extremely important to the website itself.

    Regards
    Lues


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •