All <input>'s not XHTML 1.1 valid...?

[amygdela]

Hello team-CMSMS!

I 'complained' about this earlier, but unfortunately nobody replied... I just wish that the name="bla" would be deleted of any (in search, FeedBackForm etc) so that output is XHTML1.1 Valid. I loose clients because my webpage is not valid, people don't look at the error, they just see 'this page is NOT VALID xhtml1.1' and leave....

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... cer.com%2F

It's because of the name in inputs, is there any way I can make this work as supposed? Thanks a LOT for your help!

BTW this is on v1.0.3.

[kermit]

Hello team-CMSMS!

I 'complained' about this earlier, but unfortunately nobody replied... I just wish that the name="bla" would be deleted of any (in search, FeedBackForm etc) so that output is XHTML1.1 Valid. I loose clients because my webpage is not valid, people don't look at the error, they just see 'this page is NOT VALID xhtml1.1' and leave....

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http% ... cer.com%2F

It's because of the name in inputs, is there any way I can make this work as supposed? Thanks a LOT for your help!

BTW this is on v1.0.3.

WHY do you NEED xhtml 1.1 doctype? are you coding web applications that actually *require* it? if not, then code for xhtml 1.0 transitional, which is the recommended doctype for virtually all web pages that are using xhtml (and there are some that say xhtml is bad to use, period, unless it's absolutely required for whatever is being served up).

remember, xhtml 1.1 is not supposed to be sent as text/html, and when it is served properly, some web browsers choke on it... there are also other technical issues and ramifications of using xhtml strict (google tells all), which makes it a POOR CHOICE for MOST web sites.

doctypes are not a badge of honor. you should use what's *appropriate* and compatible with your target audience and what you're doing with the site -- and not choosing a doctype simply because it's supposedly the 'latest and greatest'.  html 4.01 transitional is more than adequate for most sites as well. just because there's no "x" in front of it doesn't make it a bad thing -- you can still code a proper, compatible, and valid (and accessible) web site, without tables or formatting tags, using good ol' html along with css. what IS bad, is when designers and developers abuse the fact that html is more forgiving of poorly written markup, abuse tables and other tags, and use markup for formatting instead of css.. but those are problems created by the *people* not the doctype (with a little help from microsoft frontpage, i suppose).

if you still insist upon xhtml 1.1 strict doctype, the freedoms of the licensing for cmsms allow you to change the code if you need to...  but i wouldn't expect cmsms developers to change from the xhtml 1.0 transitional that they're currently targeting; at least not anytime soon. it's the best choice overall to meet the needs of the widest audience.

btw.. you need to fix the following to pass xhtml-anything validation:

Code: Select all

<a href="http://www.royaltyhosting.com/track/clickthru.php?id=27"><img 
src="http://www.royaltyhosting.com/track/banners/234x60.gif" border="0"></a>

sorry for the rant, amy... this isn't the first post about 'invalid' code i've read over the last week or so.. i guess i've just "had enough".. i've said my piece.. i'm done now.