SFX Site is NOT standards Compliant

Posted by barcode0 on Sun, 10/23/2005 - 13:26SFX Design Issues

 

well there has been an awful lot of talk and arguing about what is and is not standards compliant, and people on the firefox side complain about sites not rendering correctly in firefox because there not standards compliant

the idea of standards compliance and the web in general is to have 1 document (web page) that looks and behaves the same on any browser

so being that the firefox crew (and rightfully so) complains about websites not being standards compliant, and not rendering correctly on firefox , you'd think that surely their spreadfirefox website would be completely standards compliant (render the same on any standards compliant browser) 

well ive discovered that spreadfirefox.com itself IS NOT at all standards compliant, and theres a word for that

 Hypocrite -  a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold

 see for your self here at the world wide web consortium html validator (there the ones who developed the web standards to begin with)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spreadfirefox.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline

and speaking of sfx problems, i bet the above link will run off the page, see for yourself if i'm wrong, and i didnt do anything wierd

so arent we the pot calling the kettle black, shame

when a website dosent render in firefox its a big problem, but when their own website doesent render in another browser its ok??,

i think not, come on thats not even fair, lets quit with the double standards..


Think it over 


login or register to post comments | previous forum topic | next forum topic | 1874 reads
As I've said before
Submitted by jorge.villalobos on Sun, 10/23/2005 - 14:28.

Thanks for the input. I can see that you know your web design. So do I, and I agree that the site must comply with web standards if it wants to pose as an official Firefox project.

Again, although the input is constructive, the tone is a little excessive. Some people won't even bother in reading posts that are written in this manner, because they are usually pointless. If you really want SFX to be the best possible, then you should try and post these bugs using a more direct and friendly language. The community will appreciate it. 

--

I've always reckoned a camel is a horse designed by a committee. - Freddie Laker

login or register to post comments
what barcode0 says is
Submitted by andy101 on Sun, 10/23/2005 - 15:33.

what barcode0 says is correct. Yes I agree he could have said it in a nicer way. However barcode0 is perfectly correct in saying that this site is not standards complaint. Check for yourself. I kow of atleast 2 extensions to FF that allow you to validate a webpage without even needing to type in the W3's URL. Found about 23 on this page but as this comment adds content to the page it is proberly going to be higher.

 If you want constructive criticism? I will try to be constructive:

Line 101 column 89:
there is no attribute "border" in an img tag. - remove it or try using style attribute.

Line 101 column 146:
required attribute "alt" not specified. - Add alt text, as this is for the "we did it" img try maybe something like alt="We did it"

element "center" undefined, occurs multipule times. - try using style attribute instead.

end tag for "br" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified. - try using a self closing tag.

The good people at mozilla have a project called Tech Evengalism to inform webmasters about writing standards complaint sites and yet spreadfirefox.com who's purpose is to promote FF is doing the exact thing the rest of mozilla are trying to prevent webmasters doing. This strikes me as a little odd. And before you mention "its new" or "its changing". Display problems have been here long before the site went down. And why wasn't it built standards compliant to start with?

This site isn't properly viewable in the software we are trying to promote. How are we ment to say that FF is a good browser when our own site won't work in it?

 mozilla.org is standards compliant so why not spreadfirefox.com ?

login or register to post comments
hmm so
Submitted by Avinash Gupta on Sun, 10/23/2005 - 15:49.

so i agree with you
we have a saying in India "Look at yourself before looking at others"

But I tried everysite I know even google has errors

the best standards compliant site according to that validator is MSN (I tested a few sites)

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&outline=1&sp=1&noatt=1&No200=1&verbose=1

login or register to post comments
At least you have a soap box
Submitted by Ken Saunders on Sun, 10/23/2005 - 16:59.

The administrators of SFx could have left the site down until the full revamping of this site was complete. I am grateful that they didn’t. A SFx with some minor problems is much better than no SFx at all. Of course your points are valid and true but the administrators are fully aware of the problems that exist. I personally would rather have them focus their time and energy on creating the new site than to worry about minor problems on this one. Please be patient, the new site will reflect the greatness of Fx.
P.S. Please read this post.
All Eyes Are On SFx
TFAP

login or register to post comments