Is compatible xhtml 1.0 strict ?

[rob222]

Coppermine 1.3.2 is compatible xhtml 1.0 strict  ?

[Casper]

No.  We have a couple of themes that are, but as the core code is not, even these are not yet.

But, version 1.4 is being done to be compliant.

[kegobeer]

Compliance with XHTML standards, yes, but not strict AFAIK.

[rob222]

In the 1.4 version  it will be  xhtml 1 strict  ?

[kegobeer]

Compliance with XHTML standards, yes, but not strict AFAIK

[Joachim Müller]

do you know any beautiful site that validates strict? I haven't come across one yes - transitional will do imo...

Joachim

[rob222]

http://ziffdavis.com/
http://www.sitepoint.com/

http://www.motherboards.org/

I dont know if for you are beautiful, but with same structure and css more good (depending your creativity)
they should be  more beautiful (I think)

[Joachim Müller]

roflmfao - try validating it for yourself: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fziffdavis.com%2F - returns 53 errors, definitely not valid. Similar thing with http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherboards.org%2F
Keep on dreaming...

Joachim

[donnoman]

Pretty?! how about functional?

Two of these sites show one of my biggest pet peeves with the new breed of css/xhtml pages.

Peeve: Inability to deal with different window geometries. (Wha? I thought that was what css was all about?!)

Sitepoint: Dumb margins that make a narrow window almost completely unreadable and shows a wonderful new CSS/XHTML feature: missing content. Absolutely no horizontal scroll bars to reach content that couldn't be rendered with the available space.

Ziff: Huge amounts of wasted space going full screen and also shows the wonderful new CSS/XHTML feature: missing content.

Look at ziff2, when made 1/3 of my screen I actually can't view all of the content by using the horizontal scroll bars. Notice that the scroll bar is all the way to the left, and you are still missing the first half of the article.  Good Design? I say not, and I can't tell you if its a problem with the design, the css/xhtml spec, or just a bug in how my browser renders it.

The motherboards site has similar problems but not significantly different enough to bother posting a pic of it.  

Theres nothing like having a 21" Monitor running at 1600x1200 and scrolling through data in 4" x 4" window.

There was bad design with html 3 and tables; and there will be bad design with css/xhtml. I don't necessarily think the problem is with css/xhtml. It's new and few tools are available besides some validators.  

So far I've been diddling with a new themes page that is no more complicated than the one I did based off Rainy-Day.  But I'm having a tough time getting any of the code to look similar between Firefox and IE6.  I could have whipped out a table design of the same thing without any greif.

I agree with Joachim, it's tough to find a good looking CSS/XHTML site that functions properly.  I certainly would be cautious about throwing out all of coppermines table structure just to jump on CSS/XHTML bandwagon; Especially considering browser support is still sketchy.

[kegobeer]

I don't understand why a lot of people want to drop tables anyway.  XHTML isn't phasing them out, and they are fantastic for displaying tabular data, exactly what they were designed to do.