Valid HTML

Fellow Monks,

Cruising around today, I thought I would run the HTML Validator over at w3c. I was surprised to find the number of ways in which Perlmonks didn't meet the new requirements. I was wondering how much the monastery used CGI.pm and if that was the "not valid" code. Also... should the errors be fixed to better support newer browsers?

- p u n k k i d
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -Albert Einstein

Comment on Valid HTML

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Valid HTML by footpad (Abbot) on Feb 22, 2001 at 08:04 UTC
You can create as much invalid HTML using CGI.pm as you can with any tool. Well, perhaps not as much, but the point remains. CGI.pm pretty much does what you tell it and it's up to you (as the coder/designer/whatever you call yourself) to verify that the results provide the features/results you need. Please note that this isn't a criticism of CGI.pm; I'm saying it's not CGI.pm's job to prevent you from creating bad markup. If that's a concern, you need to ensure the results of your code pass validation. The Monastery itself uses the Everything engine and uses templates and code carefully crafted by the Fearless Leader. I suspect that cleaning up the HTML is on the list of things to do, along with several other tasks. --f	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Valid HTML
by footpad (Abbot) on Feb 22, 2001 at 08:04 UTC

Please note that this isn't a criticism of CGI.pm; I'm saying it's not CGI.pm's job to prevent you from creating bad markup. If that's a concern, you need to ensure the results of your code pass validation.

The Monastery itself uses the Everything engine and uses templates and code carefully crafted by the Fearless Leader.

I suspect that cleaning up the HTML is on the list of things to do, along with several other tasks.

--f

[reply]