HRWiki talk:Validation committee

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 21:16, 14 September 2005

So... what is the point of this committee, exactly? Shouldn't everybody be replacing "bad code" when they see it? And what is wrong with the font tag? Are we getting rid of all HTML? Aurora the Homestar Coder 18:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is necessarily wrong with the <font> tag, except that it is only valid for older versions of HTML. The wiki uses XHTML 1.0, and the <font> tag is deprecated in that language, meaning it is no longer in use and will invalidate your page if you use it. Invalid pages may not display properly in some browsers. Instead, you should use the more appropriate <span> tag. — Joey (talk·edits) 19:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not know that! Uh... dag, I've been littering pages with the "font" tag thanks to my signature. Uh... I'ma go fix that now... *runs away sheepishly* Aurora the Homestar Coder 19:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a very very good idea to always put quote marks around your attribute values. It is never wrong to do so, and very often it is absolutely necessary. For instance, your <font color=#8B0000> isn't valid. Instead try <font color="#8B0000">. -- Tom 19:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is my signature fixed now? I checked this page: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/index/attributes.html (this might be a good page to link to, as it's a comprehensive list of deprecated tags according to W3). Aurora the Homestar Coder 19:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't know this, but apparently the font tag is still part of the XHTML 1.0 Transitional spec, so we still have valid pages when people use it right. One thing though, the "#" symbol is unecessary and invalid when using the font tag. The "#" symbol is only important when declaring a color using CSS. — Joey (talk·edits) 16:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction 2 isn't valid

HRWiki:Introduction_2 isn't valid XHTML. I would fix it myself, but it's a protected page. Could someone fix it? ~ Sephy 23:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I would, but I don't know what's wrong with it... --Jay (Talk) 23:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Found the error. Took some time to discover it, though.

* '''[[MetaWikipedia:Help:Link|Link]]''' to other Wiki articles and other Web sites</div>

* '''[[MetaWikipedia:Help:Link|Link]]''' to other Wiki articles and other Web sites
</div></div>

Ah. Okay, fixed. --Jay (Talk) 09:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Some Validation Committee members have invalid or depecated code in their sigs

Woddfellow2 and firefoxman's signatures break the validation in the Validation committee page. I don't know what's worse, that members of the Validation committee are breaking pages with their sigs or that the validation page itself, which should be setting an example, is broken. They're signatures, so I don't feel too comfortable editing them. What should we do on those cases? ~ Sephy 00:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I've messaged a few of these people and will try to catch the rest of them this afternoon. Sorry it's taken me so long to notice this and do anything about it. I'm also going to go ahead and edit them on this page just to keep things valid. — Joey (talk·edits) 21:14, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Bookmarklet and other extension options

Another option for easy checking is the "validate html" bookmarket from Squarefree. And I use the Web Developer extension for Firefox. -- Tom 01:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Confused

I am very confused about this commitee. What is it? User:Rogue Leader.sig 19:20, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There's an international organization called the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C for short) that publishes official specifications on how HTML should be properly formatted. Since MediaWiki allows HTML in articles, there's potential for users to create improper HTML. There isn't anything built-in to MediaWiki that checks for improper code, so we have to keep an eye out for it ourselves. Thus, we created a committee to find invalid pages and properly format them. Does this make sense? — Joey (talk·edits) 20:58, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Much. Thanks Mr. Day!