[theme-reviewers] errors in the test data

[Chip Bennett]

HTML does not "break validation". The W3 validator handles HTML5 just fine
(albeit beta functionality). It simply must be validated using the proper
settings. (In that regard, it is just like CSS3; have you ever tried to
validate CSS3 code using the CSS2.1 setting? Not pretty.)

Just make sure that you set the W3 validator to "HTML5", so that it returns
valid output.

Chip

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM, internet pers <internet.pers at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101220/73ef0715/attachment-0001.htm>