phpwcms Support Forum

nope it is w3c html 4.01 valid

look at conf.template_default.inc there's no alt tag defined in every spacer in this file
much fun...

not XHTML - not really neccessary.

We are trying to make it as W3C valid as we can. The current release is 100% W3C valid (if you disable body attributes).

Regards
Oliver

Jérôme wrote:Normally, the ALT-Tag is not intended just to be empty, but to provide people that have graphics turned off in their browser or who can't see (blind people, ever heard of barrier-free web sites?) with information about what the picture shows.

That's why I think that this is a task for the developers of SPAW to include the function to add suggestive ALT-attributes to images.

But I think you are not so much interested in such philosophical questions than in an answer to your question .

I have not tested it, but I think the solution can be found in include/inc_ext/spaw/dialogs/img.php

Search after the function okClick with the line

Code: Select all

iProps.alt = (img_prop.calt.value)?(img_prop.calt.value):'';

As I said, I haven't looked deeply in the code, but this line seems to do what is asked by you. Why it doesn't work: I don't know.

Anyway I think the solution can be found in this file somewhere...

Thx, but I still not know how to solve it.....

hmm .. maybe i have to ignore all the xhtml-tags then?

anyway the validator.w3c.org giving me only 1 error for HTML:
(Note: only with an open submenu)
the CSS.validator says: but if i check the pages with the Mac-Browser iCab he give me all the "/>"-Tags as an error. The same if i check the code with BBEdit (also an Mac-tool).

If iCab and BBEdit say that /> is wrong, they are wrong . According to the XHTML-Standard, all (I call them) "simple" elements like img, br, hr, input, etc. require either to be written like this or like this iCab is interesting, but not very "mature", I dare say...

hmm, i think they simply read the Doctype and then check the code by the Doctype. and ... there is no /> required in html 4.01 .. you are talking about Xhtml but not about html, .. so for me they are not wrong.

but maybe i have to learn new stuff now

check that post
http://www.phpwcms.de/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8341#8341

Jérôme wrote:If iCab and BBEdit say that /> is wrong, they are wrong .

u can get the same result online at:
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/

try it first by unchecking the checkbox "Include warnings" !
if u like u can check the spider with "Validate entire site"

look what u get .. it should be the result like http://validator.w3.org/

but now try it again by enabling "Include warnings"...
check the page or the complete site and u will see what is wrong or not.

they simply use Doctype for the test.. and the phpwcms-doctype is set to html 401. and here u can read what w3c talking about the <br>-tag:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#edef-BR

Start tag: required, End tag: forbidden

.. thats why iCab and BBEdit telling me the page is not clean .. they simply use the same Tidy-tool u can try online

But what we want to have (and many users asked for) was W3C valid code - and that's it and a step in the future of HTML XHTML (a bit).

Regards
Oliver

Exactly.. <br /> is XHTML-valid code. That's what I wanted to say.. uhm... yes.

Did I say that I like XHTML? harrr...

what are we talking about when you say there will be w3cvalid source in the furture - valid html4.01 or valid xhtml?

it is W3C valid - now. But I started integrating XHTML compatible tags too (but more for future use).

allright - that's a clear statement, thanks olli

it will be xhtml or html ... anyway, i will try to explain why i like to see it really validated.

if i check a code for errors and i get a list of hundreds of "/>"-errors, i cant see the real errors. what are real errors? i am not talking about errors in the phpwcms.. i am talking about errors I made with my templates. validating the running system is the best way for me to find my own errors, but i cant get this errors with this horrible long list.

i have cleaned up the phpwcms again to the most errors. now i can see what errors i make my self:

check: warnings ON, check entire site ON, but hide valid

or trythis one to see what is "ok too":

check: warnings ON, check entire site ON, don't hide valid

if you check this carefully you will see that there is a bug in the search-form. sure, the search-form is working ... anyway ... in this case some ppl. (like me) are not sure if this error is about their own template, or their article?

ok, i know its about phpwcms... and its working well .. but .. what i want to say is ... try the same procedure with the following site to find a error u made maybe with your template? lets say things are not displayed in your browser like you want it to see? best way is to check it now:

phpwcms.de -> warning ON, entire site ON, hide valid ON

... so, for me its no fun to find a error on that long list.

sorry now in german:
ich kanns in englisch nicht so gut ausdrücken, deswegen noch kurz in deutsch: ich will hier auf keinen fall rummotzen, im gegenteil ... ich bin schwer begeistert von diesem CMS und ich hab mir wirklich auch typo3 und geeklog und andere sachen angesehen. für mich ist das hier das beste was ich gesehen habe. nur bin ich selbst so ein schusselkopf, das ich ziemlich viele tippfehler mache. und das kontrolliere ich eben aus gewohnheit mit diesen validatern. nur in diesen langen listen von fehlern finde ich nicht meine eigenen fehler.

das phpwcms clean zu machen dauert ca 30 minuten .. einfach mit suchen/ersetzen den ganzen ordner durchforsten. das ist kein ding. ich mach es auch gerne wieder bei der nächsten release.