[theme-reviewers] errors in the test data

[internet pers]

Fair enough, html5 will break validation but if it works shouldn't
disqualify a theme.

John

2010/12/20 <theme-reviewers-request at lists.wordpress.org>

> Send theme-reviewers mailing list submissions to
>        theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        theme-reviewers-request at lists.wordpress.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        theme-reviewers-owner at lists.wordpress.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of theme-reviewers digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: theme-reviewers Digest, Vol 7, Issue 49. Validation and
>      errors in the test data (internet pers)
>   2. Re: Error in the test data? (Mike Little)
>   3. Re: Error in the test data? (Furcifer)
>   4. Re: Error in the test data? (Curtis McHale)
>   5. Re: Error in the test data? (Chip Bennett)
>
>
> ---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
> From: internet pers <internet.pers at gmail.com>
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:11:46 +0100
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] theme-reviewers Digest, Vol 7, Issue 49.
> Validation and errors in the test data
> Yet we are supposed to write valid xhtml, this means closing them tags!
> HTML 5 is very nice but not supported yet. So we use validation as a tool
> nothing more to find those typo's and whatever. But the testdata should be
> good no matter what, does it hurt to put in that slash and help thoose
> developpers with one error less...
>
> The same goes for the embedded, the test link is pointing to removed
> material (copyrighted stuff) futher more embed is not in the standard, again
> the work arround is easy.
>
> It will help themebuilders in bughunting, when building for clients these
> errors and not validating will bring lots of trouble. It's pretty difficult
> to build a working theme. A clean test set that validates is the least we
> can do, people are judged by it...
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>>
>> ---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
>> From: internet pers <internet.pers at gmail.com>
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 02:17:21 +0100
>> Subject: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
>> <img width="329" height="222" alt="test-image-landscape-900"
>> class="alignnone size-full" src="
>> http://wpthemetestdata.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/test-image-landscape-900.jpg
>> ">
>>
>> The image tag must be closed!
>>
>> Found in a freshly downloaded import file, please check, it will fix
>> validation errors. Also the embedded stuff has to be cleaned.
>>
>> <object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="myFlashMovie.swf"
>> height="250" width="800"><param name="movie" value="myFlashMovie.swf"
>> /></object>
>>
>> Perhaps this is a good option. I found this on
>> http://wordpress.jdwebdev.com/blog/embed-xhtml-compliant-flash/.
>>
>> It will remove a ton of errors...
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
>> From: Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com>
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:28:28 -0600
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, internet pers <internet.pers at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > <img width="329" height="222" alt="test-image-landscape-900"
>> > class="alignnone size-full"
>> > src="
>> http://wpthemetestdata.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/test-image-landscape-900.jpg
>> ">
>> >
>> > The image tag must be closed!
>>
>> HTML 5 does not require that. Just an FYI, but XHTML is beating a dead
>> horse at this point. I would not consider validation to be, well,
>> valid anymore.
>>
>> -Otto
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
>> From: "Philip M. Hofer \(Frumph\)" <philip at frumph.net>
>> To: <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:36:02 -0800
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
>> Completely agree; not even worth an effort to care about validation, just
>> the 'look' on how the end result is as it appears on the site.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Otto" <otto at ottodestruct.com>
>> To: <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 5:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, internet pers <internet.pers at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <img width="329" height="222" alt="test-image-landscape-900"
>>>> class="alignnone size-full"
>>>> src="
>>>> http://wpthemetestdata.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/test-image-landscape-900.jpg
>>>> ">
>>>>
>>>> The image tag must be closed!
>>>>
>>>
>>> HTML 5 does not require that. Just an FYI, but XHTML is beating a dead
>>> horse at this point. I would not consider validation to be, well,
>>> valid anymore.
>>>
>>> -Otto
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
> From: Mike Little <wordpress at zed1.com>
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:27:04 +0000
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
> On 19 December 2010 01:28, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> HTML 5 does not require that. Just an FYI, but XHTML is beating a dead
>> horse at this point. I would not consider validation to be, well,
>> valid anymore.
>>
>>
> I completely disagree.
>
> Javascript works a lot better with valid HMTL, so does CSS. By which I mean
> some invalid HMTL will break both CSS styling and JavaScript functionality.
> So to dismiss validation as worthless ("not valid any more") is ill advised.
>
> Also, HTML 5 is *not yet supported* across the board, and will not be for
> quite a while. XHTML is not dead, it *is supported* by all the newest
> browsers in their 'best' mode (not quirks).
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Little
> http://zed1.com/
>
>
>
> ---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
> From: Furcifer <furcifer at furcifer.net>
> To: <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:38:10 +0000
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
> I think what they meant is that as long as the theme's pass all the tests,
> look fine and work fine in all browsers, then a few validation errors are
> nothing to worry about, I'm inclined to believe the same.
>
> Jay
>
> Mobile, Wolf Is Mobile.
> "Save yourself a penny for the ferryman, save yourself and let them
> suffer."
>
> http://furcifer.net
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: Mike Little <wordpress at zed1.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:27 PM
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
>
> On 19 December 2010 01:28, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> HTML 5 does not require that. Just an FYI, but XHTML is beating a dead
>> horse at this point. I would not consider validation to be, well,
>> valid anymore.
>>
>>
> I completely disagree.
>
> Javascript works a lot better with valid HMTL, so does CSS. By which I mean
> some invalid HMTL will break both CSS styling and JavaScript functionality.
> So to dismiss validation as worthless ("not valid any more") is ill advised.
>
> Also, HTML 5 is *not yet supported* across the board, and will not be for
> quite a while. XHTML is not dead, it *is supported* by all the newest
> browsers in their 'best' mode (not quirks).
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Little
> http://zed1.com/
>
>
>
> ---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
> From: Curtis McHale <curtis at curtismchale.ca>
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:19:58 -0500
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
>
> Pragmatic validation is the correct way to do it IMO. Failing something for
> a vendor prefix would be silly so I never worry about validation fails on
> that count. Again if a theme works and has HTML5 elements then I wouldn't
> see that there is any reason to fail it.
>
> --
> Curtis McHale
> SFNdesign
> 604.751.3482
> http://curtismchale.ca
> http://twitter.com/curtismchale
>
>
> ---------- Doorgestuurd bericht ----------
> From: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 08:22:16 -0600
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Error in the test data?
> The guidelines make an *explicit exception* for vendor prefixes. Just
> FYI...
>
> Chip
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Curtis McHale <curtis at curtismchale.ca>wrote:
>
>> Pragmatic validation is the correct way to do it IMO. Failing something
>> for a vendor prefix would be silly so I never worry about validation fails
>> on that count. Again if a theme works and has HTML5 elements then I wouldn't
>> see that there is any reason to fail it.
>>
>> --
>> Curtis McHale
>> SFNdesign
>> 604.751.3482
>> http://curtismchale.ca
>> http://twitter.com/curtismchale
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101220/5241f2a6/attachment-0001.htm>