I am trying to lessen the errors shown by W3C validation on my backup-copy of the html homepage. I know I cannot remove all of them.
I have a UBB 7.1.1 forum.
I post news from the forum on my homepage by linking to specific forum threads.

I get these warnings and errors on W3c validation:






How can I correct these?
Thanks.

I'm pretty sure that first error and second error are because & isn't written as &

As for the third, i think it's also due to the & before Number.

Thank you very much, Gizmo. It is appreciated.

The &'s are a bugger that are a bit difficult to fix.

I also spend some time making everything more xhtml w3c ok this week. Afer we upgrade to 7.2 I want to continue with fresh original templates.

Turning on spider-friendly urls will at least hide those ampersand errors

So what is the root cause of them and why can't the core code of UBBT be altered to use a more Web friendly alternate?

hardcoded structure; and it's not like it can't be updated, but theres a lot of areas to update

Well if that's the case then maybe time for some RegEx hehe

7.3 should have far less validation errors. I went through every public template fixing the issues, and I got in a url function that assures no link will ever be invalid again. The only thing we can't guarantee will validate are the posts made by users

assuming the posts are run through htmlspecialchars, a lot of the content should be pushed out as valid as possible

Great work on all of the validation though Ian; I know a lot of site owners who'll bow at your feet for that

Oh, that stuff gets pumped out as valid, unforunately we can't expect users to understand proper nesting.


[b][i]Test[/b][/i] results in a validation error . It's the same for every other forum software, as we'd require a complex token tree to even come close to compensating for that stuff. I know CC had that before, but the code never got checked in.

That and the issue with people doing

[i][quote]test[/quote][/i], putting block level elements inside of inline elements.

Ahh yes, nesting could be a problem indeed... At least those are miniscule compared to larger problems that you fixed with validity