Valid XHTML Coding...
 

I was just wondering in general how many coders were aware of the Markup Validation Service available at http://validator.w3.org/ and if it was Standard Policy for coders to check their MODs/HACKs before putting them up for D/L?

I ask, because some MODs I've installed have had a few, while others have been littered with errors.(although they worked) Would be a good thing (IMO) if the movers & shakers here on Vb.org had a standard expectancy about such that was communicated to the coders here.

In fact, 'if' a MOD/HACK meets proper coding format, the (free) service above even has a simple graphic to denote such that coders could post in their modification threads (see attached below), or perhaps it could be added as another check-box to each modification thread to show who's MODs/HACKs are properly coded.(HTML-wise anyway)

Aware: Most of them.
Standard Policy: No.

I'm aware of it and all my mods are 100% XHTML 1.0 Transitional and CSS 2 compliant (and the release thread contains such an icon) :)

But in fact it isn't that important because vBulletin is working with tables, so it isn't semantic (and that's the biggest point of the W3C, not a lost alt attribute). Although I report W3C errors to other coders when I use their mods and I find some.

The checkbox for 100% W3C compliance would be a good thing IMO :up:
But maybe there could be more checkboxes added: fully phrased, ...

Aware: Yes.
Standard Policy / Bothered : No.

Second.

Coders are good enough to give up their spare time to create mods'.
I don't think anyone should even hint of a standard policy.

Maybe not a standard policy, but a check box wouldn't hurt. At least it allows those who only want W3C hacks (which isn't me, btw ;)) to take heed.

Most coders (designers too) are aware I'm sure. Many people who release stuff here don't consider themself coders though, and it's probably discouraging to find out that their stuff doesn't meet any standards.

A checkbox wouldn't hurt, but I think there are more important ones that are needed first, such as fully phrased, compliant links (sIDs). Hopefully when the hack database comes along it will boast some of these requests.



Going as far requiring this would be ridiculous, and most likely discouraging.

Fully phrased is a good suggestion. I'm not sure what you mean by Compliant Links ?

Making sure that sessionhash is passed through every link and form.

It would be cool to see a "compliant" box at the top. lol Personally, I don't use any modification from anywhere "right out of the box". I normally go in and tweak it for my purposes. When I do that, I also make it compliant.