w3c Standards?

Permalink
Hey all,
I've been a long time designer/developer working mostly with Joomla. I've been spending the afternoon playing with C5 and like a lot what I see.

I did a quick search of the forms for any information about w3c standards. I couldn't seem to find any, hence a new topic.

For the most of my work I like to comply as much as possible with w3c standards. I just done a HTML validation on the demo site using the green salad theme. It came back with 11 errors. Look like most of these are template related?

I just wondered if someone could make some comments about weather C5 output is standards complaint etc.

Also ran it on the C5 home page and it came back with 21 errors!

Kind regards

 
ScottC replied on at Permalink Reply
ScottC
a lot of it is template and the one off nature of it, but yeah you can absolutely have 100% w3c compliance since everything rolls through a view, which you can have full control over if you want.

There is nothing stopping you from w3c compliance, they just don't provide 100% out of the box. This is fine since most sites will want to roll their own template/blockviews/pagetypes etc anyways.
jgarcia replied on at Permalink Reply
jgarcia
I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that the validity of the code would depend solely on the content of the template and the content of the blocks within the page you are validating.

The code that the CMS adds in is minimal (mainly links to some JS files), and looks to be valid to me, so this would really just all depend on the coding of the template and the content within each individual block.

And let me just say as a side note that I used to work a lot with DotNetNuke CMS which put a whole bunch of junk code in that was not valid. if you only got 11 errors in DNN that would be amazing (if even possible!).
dazzakiller replied on at Permalink Reply
Thanks so much for the quick replies. They help.

I suppose that I will need to do some further testing to confirm valid output for C5, unless someone can definitely confirm. I still just dipping my toe in the water of C5 at the moment, but see it be great for some up coming projects that I have.

I managed to get quite good at getting Joomla 1.5 standard complaint and semantic using their over-ride system. I know what you mean jgarcia about a lot of these CMS' adding junk code.

Regards
jgarcia replied on at Permalink Reply
jgarcia
hey dazza - here's a bit of clarification regarding the code. the only thing the actual CMS outputs other than the template and the content is:
<title>Your Site Title</title>
   <meta name="description" content="" />
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
<script type="text/javascript">
var CCM_ENABLE_BREADCRUMB = false;
var CCM_DISPATCHER_FILENAME = '/index.php';
var CCM_CID = 44;
var CCM_FEEDBACK = true;
var CCM_EDIT_MODE = false;
var CCM_ARRANGE_MODE = false;
var CCM_IMAGE_PATH = "/concrete/images";
var CCM_TOOLS_PATH = "/index.php/tools/required";
var CCM_REL = "";
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/index.php/tools/required/i18n_js"></script>


...which is valid XHTML.

Everything else is determined by the code in your template and the code in your content. So the answer to your questions is yes - as long as you make your templates and content have valid code.
Remo replied on at Permalink Reply
Remo
please don't forget the blocks. there are still some core blocks that don't generate valid code yet!

should be fairly easy to fix but it seems no one did so far..
Remo replied on at Permalink Reply
Remo
Scott is 100% right. This works but there are some block which don't generate valid code yet.

They are easy to fix thanks to a method called addHeaderItem. I started fixing some blocks but that code isn't good enough to get published but if you ever have a problem with getting your code valid, post a message an I'm absolutely sure we'll be able to help you!

You might have to make some core modifications tho, but if they are good enough, I'm sure Andrew will merge them into the official distribution!
powermick replied on at Permalink Reply
powermick
Following the discussion by:
http://www.concrete5.org/index.php?cID=8436...

The preceding discussion is the:
http://www.concrete5.org/index.php?cID=6089...