TinyPortal isn't W3C Valid!

[copter]

i say

if it works

thats all u need

[bloc]

Microsoft's way of handling things is rather what made the W3C in the first place...

Firefox/Mozilla and also Opera + few others have always obeyed common rules better than Microsoft. Gates & company just made their own variant of it, and expected others to just follow. But as time has shown, IE 7 is now hard at work to play catch up to the other browsers in CSS support, W3C validation and many other small enhancements...

So I would say: thank god the standards were created DESPITE IE being most used.

[IchBin]

I don't believe you cater to the masses just because of majority. There should always be standards. And just because a company has a bigger share of the market, you don't let them set the standards. Microsoft has always tried to do things their way. Same thing happened with the Netbui protocol. If it wasn't for the TCP/IP standards we would have a big fight over how the internet standards should have been set.

[Blue Steel]

I's may not be TP thats not compliant.. but some of the blocks users put in .. or smf itself for that matter..

1. you put up a site for PEOPLE to View..
2. not all webpage designers know about or care about standards .. they do something and if it works then fine
3. the average person with a web page generally only tests it witrh the Web Browser that they are using.
4. To have the web pages show up the same on ALL browsers limits you into what you can do and display.. itsa even worse these days with the advent of browser plugins.. some are written only for one or 2 browser engines. and with the blockers out there about 1/4 of your content t simply may be blocked not get through wether its compliant or not .. to make everything compliant is a full time job.. and they keep changing the standards .. or browsers so that one has to keep redoing the same content over and over
5. just look at how easy it is for a hacker to know what files to delete / edit because of conformaty..Files that contain  *index* *default* *logo* *config* *main* *settings* *img* *png* *txt* *gif* etc.. etc  in their names if a hacker does get in then ALL these files are suseptable.. I fore one am against naming conventions of servers for that very reason.. Browsers should look into the files to see what type they are .. not by the name or extention .. deleteing or editing all of these will bring ANY webSite out there down .. its that easy

on the other hand most about 75%+ arn't able to be read with a text to speach thuingy for the visually impared or text only browsers.. like they ALL should be..

until the worlds population ALL do things the same way .. speak the same language then how can we expect the internet to... the internet is just a pipeline for sharing information.. its up to induviduals how they communicate.. be it in any language or form  .. and if you weant to talk to others out there then thats up to you to make sure that they can understand what your talking about..  they should stick to setting standards for HOW the data is moved from A to B and not the content of that data or what ppl are doing with it.. there is absolutly nothing stopping anyone from making up their own server with its own type of chat to work with a particular specific client.. in fact there are many already.. thats what the internet is its not and never will be a Cop policing how ppl talk on it its outgrown that little sandpit of the US military

[bloc]

But thats exactly what the standards are meant to simplify.

That all people can read a html page and its semantic code will actually "convert" the meaning of everything into something they understand. So a semantic tag like can mean different things for a user that sees, and one that don't. Or in one culture totally different to another. The "old" solution of using "<b > (for bold)" will not make sense for the one that don't see..or for a language with pictures for words, like chinese. "Strong" just means it needs to stand out somehow.

Just a simple example there..but the trouble is getting designers to see the benefits of it all. I too am resistant to it, but I do see the advantages, even if its real hard to accomplish every time. My goal is to make both TP and even SMF more standards compliant than now, more semantic correct - and at the same time look and behave like it does now. A challenging task, which i only just barely have begun on.

[bloc]

Oh, the server extensions etc. are actually server technology related and has nothing with web standards afaik. Already many sites use something like main.do instead of index.php. But I know too little of this to be any help there lol