I did get it compliant, but then I realised the WYSIWYG editor would need fixing to prevent further errors... as well as all the other modules too.

Unfort, the way that Mambo works can get very confusing - all dependant upon options chosen in the admin setup - leading to massive and confusing files (They aren't clearly marked at all).
I informed the creator of one of the modules about it, and made a little prompt that it would aid in being cross browser compatible (at first my site suffered the same issue as here... it didn't work in Firefox). I fixed that issue up, but with all the editors used for news posts etc, I would have to find out where that editor makes its mistakes and correct them. To this date I just don't have the time... especially since that would only really address the main page. It will take months to straighten out a whole mambo install

At that point (due to other commitments) - I left it, and have no intention of trying to fix it until I have nothing better to do. I wouldn't be suprised if many websites do the same - because going through all the files finding errors takes months (the average install contains over 200 files!). Unless you are an employed person, there are better things in life to concentrate upon... and to be honest, I have yet to receive any complaints.

Isn't 4.01 supposed to be backwards compatible? Therefore old tags like <br> work fine in your browser, yet "4.01" standards require <br />. Both work, but the former gives an error as not being compatible. As it stands, if you use a 4.01 tag, you need to declare 4.01 don't you. It doesn't mean you change all tags from 3.0 or 4.0 to be the same, due to backwards compatiblity... just the newer tags require the reference.
However, all that throws up errors after error.

Edited by - Mike G on 6/12/2005 3:19:36 AM

I have no problems with the server side code (persumably written in ASP unless the .asp extension is used as part of a security by obscurity approach). It seems to work well, I have as of yet seen no erros generated by scripts. It is the final output of HTML to the client machine I think is a little dodgy. However as that HTML is proberly largely dynamically generated changes made to the final HTML output would be pretty useless because it would involve someone incorporating it into the Server side script.

If help is needed I might be able to offer advice on what is causing problems and how to patch it up a little.

For thoose IE users who can't see a problem, disable javascript and then go to the homepage And many people disabled javascript in the past because it kills things like popups.

This is caused because the <table> tags are written by javascript, from the code it looks like it controls the dimensions based on the browser. (not sure why this is done, but there is proberly a reason). What this means is, no javascript, no <table> tag, which throws off the entire layout, maybe you could use a <noscript> tag, or use an ordinary <table> tag and just use javascript to change its dimensions? or just use 1 size for all browsers? Or use Server Side browser recognition by examining the UserAgent header (though this can be falsified)?

I did not mean to insult the creator, He has don a damn good job with the code that must power this site, even written his own forum, now that takes skill. My point was serious problems can be caused if certian browseing enviroments are encountered, and sites should be designed to work no matter what software or settings a user has.

After taking another glance through the HTML alot of the problems look easily fixable, putting quotes arround entity values will wipe out quite a few problems, The parser gets kind of confused when it encounters the <script> stuff as it ignores it so it doesn't get the documtent.write stuff, which means alot of errors could be caused by just one problem. (I once made a typo in a HTML file, 1 character wrong, 12 errors generated lol)

I admit I should have been more polite, which was what I attempted to do in the second post. Again I appoligise if I was rude, I am aware that I could have presented my concerns in a much better fashion.

I would also like to point out I am not the first person to notice a problem when viewing with non IE browsers. There are over 60 million FireFox users, imagine how much more your community could grow. I have tried to look beyond the graphical probelms experianced with my browser, and have continued using this site due to the excellent content that is provided by both the staff and the community.

{Edit}
I've taken a screen shot of homepage without Javascript enabled, taken on Internet Explorer
link: Homepage, with no javascript

Also a comparision of Freelancer Base list i both browsers
link: Base List in IE
link: Base List in FF
{/edit}

Edited by - andy101 on 6/12/2005 8:42:09 AM

@ Mike G

Erm HTML4.01 is generally backwards compatible, and <br /> is not proper HTML, that is XHTML. <br> is an inline tag and does not require a closing tag in HTML, in XHTML all tags require closing so a self closing tag is used <br />. XHTML and HTML are not the same thing!

Your doctype header must match what you have written, however if you right something in html3.0 or whatever it should be fine to call it HTML4.01 however you should not call it XHTML1.0, HTML and XHTML are differant technologies and should not be used interchangably, XHTML is based on the rules of XML.

It is kind of ammusing you go on about 4.01 causing errors when you use 4.01, your doctype header is XHTML1.0! It would be like me writing a Java program and expecting my C compiller to compile it.

<br> tags used in my HTML4.01 pages cause no errors when I validate them, however If i was to add an XHTML doctype it would spew out large number of errors because I wrote it in HTML using HTML syntax rules. If you want to write HTML4.01 then you must use the HTML doctype and not XHTML as your homepage currently carries. Your doctype header is used to inform the client browser what rules to use when rendering the page.

As far as I can tell there is NO requirment to use <br /> in a HTML4.01 file, and infact self-closing tags like that can cause validation errors themselves and so should not be used in HTML, only XHTML.

(HTML != XHTML)

Andy love your breakdown of the HTML prob. I agree, I love this site too and I read very carefully, I only see a hidden compliment as far as the TLR site goes, not any flames at all.

Second I do see some major Microsoft flames going, as far as MS I am not thier biggest fan either, but i do agree IE and many other products are released unfinished and patched on the fly ( sounds a lot like a mod to me)

But man oh man do you ever like to type, you must be an old school coder to be so thorough in your teardown on the HTML, my fingers hurt just reading the post I am not siding with anyone and correct me if I'm wrong u like site...u don't like MS (IE)...and we all like each other

Whether you spectate or participate, Life Happens

Hmm, obviously I got confused slightly there - if you actually check my site link provided... it is xhtml1.0 declared - not html 4.01. Late night posting between two sites different codes.. bah.

As you can imagine, seeing someone appear on a site, register and then immediately post about how you absolotely HAVE to correct every error on every page becuase they are threatening to "report" you if you don't isn't, well - draw your own conclusions.

I apologise that I managed to confuse myself, but I still haven't found anywhere that says to display 4.01 in the header REQUIRES you to use perfect coding. It is only in reference to the language used...

Edited by - Mike G on 6/17/2005 9:02:59 AM

Reading this thread makes me headache - from content and from tone . Proposition: why don't you put your skills together and invite Andy to help with coding/testing/correcting/whatever of the new site ?

If information serves, there are 5 people working on the new site. Bargib, Eraser, BP, sw, and Stinger. Let them do thier job, without armchair quarterbacks.