I get those errors also when I try and validate my websites. It would be great if C5 could clean that up a bit.

send them patches. Instead of just asking for stuff all the time, why don't you create a simple patch on your own?

Makes it much more likely that they'll fix it..

I'm currently looking for a alternative CMS, why should I takes C5 when the first thing I should do on it is fixing problems? That's not really the motivation. I think then I prefer to look for another CMS. It seems that every insalled plug.in besides "Text" is invalid. Ok, if it where only one i would think about to start like that, but if I see that actually every functionality of a CMS is not valid, it's not really the philosophy I want to support nor build on.

no, but I guess it's not very motivating for the core team (I'm not part of it) to help all the people out there either..

Why help? Because it's a free product! Released under FOSS..
Community spirit.

I understand that it can be frustrating if you start working with something and find a few problems right at the beginning.

My philosophy is to share and I wish some more people would have the same philosophy.

Of course, i support your philosophy, but i'm not actually working with C5, i was just testing it, to choose one of all those CMS out there, and I must say i'm not satisfied, i say there's a good idea behind it, but i don't like the way it is done.

I just want to throw this out there...a little advantage/disadvantage comparison for c5...

Advantages:
-most user-friendly CMS ever
-incredibly powerful framework
-active growing community
-growing and uncluttered marketplace

Disadvantages:
-not 100% valid code.

let's just be honest...the only people this matters to is developers (including myself...i like valid code). but for the end user - who care if you leave type="text/css" out of the style tags??? if div tags weren't closed or there were actually errors that caused stuff to break, that would be one thing...this is minor stuff like missing alt tags or whatever.

don't just dismiss such a great application because of a couple of small errors that really don't even affect anything. i don't say this for my benefit or even for the benefit of the core team. i say it so that you don't miss out on taking advantage of a great piece of software.

just saying :) i will now step off of my soapbox.

I agree,

I think that validating code is a little like checking the capitalization of text that's being fed into a text-to-speech engine. On the one hand, as a developer, it's good to keep things clean and nice. On the other hand, if it sounds the same in the end, who really cares?

I think that the best programming is a healthy blend of attention to detail and pragmatism. Great programming practices are awesome to use, but in the end it's about whether it works.

well the first thing that comes to mind for me is what are the errors maybe they are quickly and easily fixed
but alas no C&P of the errors and now the site the OP was refering to is gone so I cant even go check for my self.

and personally I find it annoying when people get high and mighty about vaild code the person only cares about your code when it screws things up as long as they can see your site they are happy and any coder who cant deal with a few errors needs to get his head out of his .... err umm well anyway

I do find it a bit humorous that the OP is complaining about 38 errors and claims to build websites valid but if you go to w3 and check his root directory

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fmarcellofolio.ch%2F...

you find "92 Errors, 63 warning(s)"

as for me I'm done with this thread unless more helpful information is added and at that point Id be more than happy to return and attempt to eliminate errors

Any my thoughts Remo are if you make something awesome for C5, I'll pay for it :)

Jesse

The thing about the valid code, concerned me too. Heres the rub....

I am not a coder, I wouldnt know where to start to be honest. I've just started leaning a little basic CSS ...

I can only give feedback and hope you guys can sort it our and fair play to the community, it pretty much does a great job.

Concrete5 is an incredibly good application. Some of the people that have supported me via their theme (a big shout for Chris @c5mix) and the add on blocks both free and paid for.

I have a local web designer really bashing me about code validity and it becoming law to make your site valid and accessible ...

Can anyone comment? Are such doing errors a real problem or is this a purist thing?

law schmaw.

Look. I've been making websites since 1995. I've made a lot of 'em for every type of business and organization you can imagine. I've worked on Million dollar web projects for major brands. I've built sites for the sketchy guy down the street. You name it, I've done it.

The only time any of my projects ever spat out perfectly validating code was for a project where ADA level 2 compliancy was a requirement.

Now I'm not advocating sloppy code. I'm saying the things that the real world demands (design, clients, extendability and the amount of time in the day) often make code that various committees desire unapproachable. It's important to me that concrete5 be clean code that makes sense, is easily readable and performance/security sensitive. It's a much lower priority to me that every line of code a block makes be W3C compliant.

As best I've heard, the only real thing that doesn't validate is some empty style tags. If someone would like to submit a patch fix for these, I'd be happy to include it in core...

Otherwise I call it a dance between the goal, and our reality.

-frz
ceo.

To me it's mostly about marketing.. Thanks to W3C you (think) you can tell whether a developer did a good job or not.

Franz, there's more than the style tag but the patches are available for some time now:

http://www.concrete5.org/community/bugs/style-tag-fixe/...

http://www.concrete5.org/community/bugs/empty_andltstyleandgtandlts...

ah ha!

thanks I hadn't seen those. I'll make sure they get included in the beta version of concrete5 as long as they don't negatively impact something else..

Thx!

I too am new to C5 and have personally asked about W3 compliance as well. I am not a Developer or versed in depth with any coding.

I understand the reason behind the W3 standards. Makes sense. I do question though 1) if they "W3" keep up with technology like Dojo and others. 2) Does a standard mean it's valid or state of the art code? 3) Is it possible that many talented developers - if they had additional hours in a day could actually enhance the standards?

As for the minor code infractions, I am not concerned from a performance or functionality stand point.

Why: Look at Microsoft http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warn...

And Apple http://www.apple.com http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css21&warn...

Then look at An actual ADA compliant checker website http://www.achecker.ca/checker/index.php... and another http://www.cynthiasays.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=-1&u...

They too have errors - not many but they do. Check html and css then check section 508 too.

If Microsoft and Apple - who spend millions annually on marketing their website....
and they have errors too....while they sit on the w3 committees

I'm not worried about the balance of minor errors vs Go To Market speed and creating an online presence that drives revenue.

I'm sure, C5 is and continue with their best efforts to deliver a platform that "simply" works.

So I have to agree with most of the replies. I found that if your site is W3C compliant, it's usually plain and boring. Coding for it should be important... as in you should make sure you are actually following proper process when creating your template.

One thing that may have been neglected in this conversation is that with a CMS like this, your client is very likely taking over content portion of the site. Don't expect them to follow any kind of W3C compliance. Just hope the RTE does a good job of cleaning up after them!

Look at the competitors:
Drupal: 7 Errors
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://drupal.org&charset=(de...

Joomla!: 1 Error
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://joomla.org&charset=(de...

Nobody is perfect... right?
I mean, whitehouse.gov has many errors. They are based on Drupal, but you would think that site would have to be perfect.

I do find that the fewer errors you have, the more future proof your site is. It will last longer... There is a point of diminishing returns, and the fact that you can override most output with Concrete5 puts me at ease. The only issue I have is the table based form, which has a paid plugin that puts it in divs. Other than that, I'm very happy with the code, and the output.
Just my two cents.
-Phil

I agree. W3C compliance is over rated and those tags you see at the bottom of many websites only appeal to the geek. Most end users of a website don't even know what W3C even is so taking the time to make a site 100% compliant and adding those W3C checked images to the bottom is just a waste of time and valuable screen real estate. Plus it has the potential to confuse an end user if they click it and are taken to a new site.

Now if Google actually put some points into your Page Rank for having a compliant site then it might be worth it but I don't think they do.