Register - Login
Views: 99801329
 Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users
Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies 		05-03-22 06:50:17 AM
Jul - Meta - It would be easier to make this valid HTML5… New poll - New thread - New reply
Pages: 1 2Next newer thread | Next older thread
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 89


Posts: 765/2030
EXP: 6719936
For next: 195965

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 1.6 years
Posted on 11-01-09 08:41:53 AM Link | Quote
You know, just add this to the header, and the board actually passes HTML5 validation (with warnings)


<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">


etc…

____________________
tarale
VideoGuy
Member
Level: 22


Posts: 61/84
EXP: 53006
For next: 5344

Since: 05-10-09


Since last post: 12.0 years
Last activity: 9.9 years
Posted on 11-01-09 03:49:06 PM Link | Quote
And validation is important....why?
Danika
6230
Level: 141


Posts: 423/6235
EXP: 33298086
For next: 821928

Since: 10-23-09


Since last post: 1.2 years
Last activity: 1.2 years
Posted on 11-01-09 03:54:30 PM Link | Quote
HTML4 is better for the most part... I still use that and CSS2

I don't know why... but I guess it's because that HTML5 added some tags that I don't particularly need/care about

____________________
Post 847/1311 (41 days), online 1 day ago
Posted on 11-01-09 04:36:27 PM Link | Quote
Adding the doctype at least makes browsers run in standards compliant modes (only found that out about 2 years ago ), and setting the charset makes sure the browser picks the right one, so those should be worth doing

Then lang="en" is for language dependant things like spell checkers and text-to-speech, or just specifying the language for search engines, so it doesn't hurt either ... (never knew about that though, had to look it up)


But I never cared much about validation otherwise, as long as it works in all of the common browsers

____________________


#50 
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 89


Posts: 766/2030
EXP: 6719936
For next: 195965

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 1.6 years
Posted on 11-01-09 08:03:29 PM Link | Quote
Validation is very important. For one thing, not specifying character encoding can even lead to security vulnerabilities

It also helps your website work consistently across browsers.

As for the HTML4 vs HTML5 argument, the only reason I specified HTML5 is that it's a lot easier to make this website validate in HTML5, some four or five errors, compared to three hundred… I was just going the path of least resistance.

It would take significantly more work to make the Acmlmboard validate as XHTML or even HTML 4.01 Transitional.

And hey, HTML5 simplifies a lot of things like the Doctype and Language greatly. I mean, which are you more likely to remember (and be able to type correctly by hand)?

<!DOCTYPE html
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

Or

<!DOCTYPE html>

Plus, if a project wants to be taken seriously in the web development world and not laughed at outright, it should validate

____________________
tarale
Rachel Mae

Creature of Chaos
Level: 141


Posts: 2211/5929
EXP: 33603921
For next: 516093

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: she/her
From: Foxglen

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 5 min.
Posted on 11-01-09 08:09:50 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by code.google.com
...Internet Explorer may incorrectly guess that the page is encoded in UTF-7.
Why am I not surprised?

Why don't security websites just say "Internet Explorer is a vulnerability" and be done with it?

____________________
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 89


Posts: 767/2030
EXP: 6719936
For next: 195965

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 1.6 years
Posted on 11-01-09 08:14:18 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Gunstar Green
Originally posted by code.google.com
...Internet Explorer may incorrectly guess that the page is encoded in UTF-7.
Why am I not surprised?

Why don't security websites just say "Internet Explorer is a vulnerability" and be done with it?
Because you need to know how specifically Internet Exploder is being a stupid vulnerability monster in order to avoid its problems.

Otherwise, yes, I agree, IE is a piece of shit. Every version. I'm no more impressed with IE7 and IE8 than I am with IE6, although thankfully they fight me less when it comes to CSS and PNG alpha transparency.

____________________
tarale
Post 857/1311 (41 days), online 1 day ago
Posted on 11-01-09 08:18:53 PM Link | Quote
"<!DOCTYPE html>" is a definite improvement over the long one at least ... (except it says just plain HTML, not which version)

And yeah, I said the doctype and charset are good to include, I just didn't know about those (or their use) when AcmlmBoard was made


Makes me wonder what changed between HTML 4 and 5 to make it that much simpler to validate in, though ... I'm pretty sure the constant lack of attribute quotes and closing tags (</td> and </tr>) and the occasional deprecated <font> would make it far from valid

____________________


#50 
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 89


Posts: 768/2030
EXP: 6719936
For next: 195965

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 1.6 years
Posted on 11-01-09 08:23:36 PM Link | Quote
Yeah, I thought that was a bit weird too, although it does still give me warnings about bunches of deprecated tags, like <center> and all of that, it's not flagging them as outright validation failures, which is nice.

Making the board valid code, one way or another, is a good project to take on. And who knows, perhaps it might limit some of the bug reports you guys receive.

I doubt we really have anyone on the forum that requires any specific accessibility stuff, but perhaps that could also be because we have our doors closed to some of them…

____________________
tarale
Xkeeper

Level: 263


Posts: 13595/25353
EXP: 297140786
For next: 1819667

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour
Posted on 11-01-09 11:51:00 PM Link | Quote
I can't specify the encoding as UTF-8 without breaking whatever the hell it is. I tried it once and pretty much everything not letters turned into gibberish.

____________________
Post 866/1311 (41 days), online 1 day ago
Posted on 11-02-09 12:05:32 AM Link | Quote
You could set it as Windows-1252 (ANSI), but that could in turn break posts that do use UTF-8 or any other encoding ...


I'm not too sure either how it should be handled when there's multiple encodings used on the same page

____________________


#50 
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 89


Posts: 786/2030
EXP: 6719936
For next: 195965

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 1.6 years
Posted on 11-02-09 12:05:40 AM Link | Quote
Do you know what the server's default encoding is?

____________________
tarale
Xkeeper

Level: 263


Posts: 13601/25353
EXP: 297140786
For next: 1819667

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour
Posted on 11-02-09 12:06:29 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tarale
Making the board valid code, one way or another, is a good project to take on. And who knows, perhaps it might limit some of the bug reports you guys receive.

I'm curious as to if you've ever actually looked at the board code.

____________________
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 89


Posts: 788/2030
EXP: 6719936
For next: 195965

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 1.6 years
Posted on 11-02-09 12:16:48 AM Link | Quote
Briefly enough to be aware that it's a horrible mess and has over 300 different validation errors and a whole bunch of deprecated code.

____________________
tarale
Xkeeper

Level: 263


Posts: 13607/25353
EXP: 297140786
For next: 1819667

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 hour
Posted on 11-02-09 01:40:31 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tarale
Briefly enough to be aware that it's a horrible mess and has over 300 different validation errors and a whole bunch of deprecated code.

I meant the actual underlying PHP, which is even worse.

Rewriting the entire forum software would be easier than bringing this one up to date

____________________
Post 869/1311 (41 days), online 1 day ago
Posted on 11-02-09 01:45:15 AM Link | Quote
See also why I eventually started board2, although that was during the 1.A/1.B mess so it just gave another reason ...


Now if only I could have finished it by myself at the time, instead of having you and blackhole disagree on things and split off to yet another return of 1.92

____________________


#50 
Danika
6230
Level: 141


Posts: 479/6235
EXP: 33298086
For next: 821928

Since: 10-23-09


Since last post: 1.2 years
Last activity: 1.2 years
Posted on 11-02-09 01:48:48 AM Link | Quote
I don't really mind 1.92 at all... although it was too bad Xkeeper and BH89 had to disagree and result in another split, leaving them with the 2.0 code

____________________
Tarale
Catgirl
C:\ DOS
C:\ DOS RUN
RUN DOS RUN
Level: 89


Posts: 805/2030
EXP: 6719936
For next: 195965

Since: 07-23-07

Pronouns: she/her

Since last post: 2.0 years
Last activity: 1.6 years
Posted on 11-02-09 02:15:13 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Xkeeper
Originally posted by Tarale
Briefly enough to be aware that it's a horrible mess and has over 300 different validation errors and a whole bunch of deprecated code.

I meant the actual underlying PHP, which is even worse.

Rewriting the entire forum software would be easier than bringing this one up to date

No, I don't have access to the files for this version of the board.

____________________
tarale
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 192


Posts: 3698/12211
EXP: 99321042
For next: 552529

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 7.4 years
Last activity: 7.3 years
Posted on 11-02-09 06:24:44 AM Link | Quote

Time/Date

11-02-09 12:24:44am

Posts

3698

Days Here

852

Level

88
Metal_Man88
Local Moderator
Lemme tell you, this board's code is such a gnarly mess that making it validate is probably about as easy as building a new one from scratch.

On the other hand, a few doctype tags (not the encoding ones) might help force newer browsers to behave.

That's about it.

Oh yeah, and if we wanted to get high up on search engines, a few meta tags would be useful.

That said, anyone smart enough to use some bizarre utf-7 vulnerability is probably too smart to waste their time trying it here--and if they do, odds are it can be destroyed with a filter, rather than trying to get vaguely HTML 3.0 spec code up to HTML 5.

I also dislike HTML 5 and am not too happy with HTML 4; it's like the devs decided to break everything that worked and replace it with nonsense. Just because it's new doesn't make it better. In fact, making the board HTML 5 would make it less compatibile with old browsers, and theoretically this could make more UTF-7 style vulnerabilities hit them.

So, in conclusion, while it's nice on the surface to imagine an HTML 5 compliant Acmlmboard, it's hard enough just making it no longer use various ancient hole-filled PHP things, let alone to find the zillions of html snippets and fix them up--although in an ideal world, we would be able to do it, since it would be nice.

...

Now I am craving pancakes for no reason.

____________________
Original Layout © Tobias Kelmandia
Dialga
Member
lol
Level: 28


Posts: 40/149
EXP: 125099
For next: 6239

Since: 05-20-09


Since last post: 12.3 years
Last activity: 10.4 years
Posted on 11-05-09 01:39:23 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Metal_Man88
Lemme tell you, this board's code is such a gnarly mess that making it validate is probably about as easy as building a new one from scratch.

On the other hand, a few doctype tags (not the encoding ones) might help force newer browsers to behave.

That's about it.

Oh yeah, and if we wanted to get high up on search engines, a few meta tags would be useful.

That said, anyone smart enough to use some bizarre utf-7 vulnerability is probably too smart to waste their time trying it here--and if they do, odds are it can be destroyed with a filter, rather than trying to get vaguely HTML 3.0 spec code up to HTML 5.

I also dislike HTML 5 and am not too happy with HTML 4; it's like the devs decided to break everything that worked and replace it with nonsense. Just because it's new doesn't make it better. In fact, making the board HTML 5 would make it less compatibile with old browsers, and theoretically this could make more UTF-7 style vulnerabilities hit them.

So, in conclusion, while it's nice on the surface to imagine an HTML 5 compliant Acmlmboard, it's hard enough just making it no longer use various ancient hole-filled PHP things, let alone to find the zillions of html snippets and fix them up--although in an ideal world, we would be able to do it, since it would be nice.

...

Now I am craving pancakes for no reason.


Windows Vista, anyone


____________________
Pages: 1 2Next newer thread | Next older thread
Jul - Meta - It would be easier to make this valid HTML5… New poll - New thread - New reply


Rusted Logic

Acmlmboard - commit 47be4dc [2021-08-23]
©2000-2022 Acmlm, Xkeeper, Kaito Sinclaire, et al.

31 database queries, 9 query cache hits.
Query execution time: 0.081859 seconds
Script execution time: 0.049801 seconds
Total render time: 0.131660 seconds