CMS Made Simple Forums

Posted: **Wed Jan 31, 2007 3:08 am**

Hello folks, hi to all here at CMSms

!

I am a bit trying around with CMSms and my first impressions about it: Awesome simple and a nice feature set. Congrats to the devs!

Since i am rel. new towards css, html and especially php, i am learning that stuff in my rare free time along with other hobbies.
So my goal with learning css & html & web-standards is in consequence, that i might be able - one day - to make for some of my hobbies some nice, easy to access (also for handicapped persons) and well structured web-pages.

CMSms does appeal very much to me, because CMSms does not seem to be straining after 1.000.000 effects but to build a solid, secure and - most important - web-standards compliant application, which is usable for a lot of people on all most common web-environments (providers, virtual webspace etc.).
So said, i don´t want a ton of 'useless' features, quick & dirty scripted and get my webspace defaced or hacked *g* (see many Nuke forks). *Though i am not happy (currently) to read that 'future' releases will need php5

- but maybe php5 will be available to that time @more providers*

Now to my question:
If i am using the 'standard' template 'Left simple navigation + 1 column' and the corresponding css, the generated pages will not validate as 'This Page Is Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!' @http://validator.w3.org/.
I get a lot of errors with the form of the search-box, which is included - by default - in this standard template -> .

A simple 'remove' of {search} makes all parsed pages - including Album - at once XHTML 1.0 Strict.

So i leave {search} currently out - also with trying to make new templates - but i would like to have a 'valid' solution WITH that seach box, too.

Any suggestions?

Take care,
BC

Posted: **Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:02 pm**

Nobody knows about that 'default' search-box? Another question dealing with that box of a different user got no answer(s), too...sad thing...

Posted: **Thu Feb 01, 2007 5:33 am**

BlackCats wrote: Nobody knows about that 'default' search-box?

Please make a look at page source - the search form output is not valid xhtml strict:

Code: Select all

<form id="cntnt01moduleform_1" name="cntnt01moduleform_1" method="get" action="index.php"><div class="hidden"><input type="hidden" name="mact" value="Search,cntnt01,dosearch,0" /><input type="hidden" name="cntnt01returnid" value="15" /></div>


<label for="cntnt01searchinput">Suche</label>: <input type="text" name="cntnt01searchinput" id="cntnt01searchinput" value="Enter Search..." size="20" maxlength="50" />
<input name="submit" value="Submit" type="submit" />

</form>

There must something changed in modules source / search template ...

Posted: **Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:45 am**

*Thumbs up* Thank you very much, cyberman!

Yes, with activating the 'default' (available) search-box, the parsed code gets at once not valid xhtml strict. Hmm, i am new with CMSms and - though it is really easy to understand and amazing simple to install, manage and use - i have still a lot to explore.

Currently i leave that search-box out, maybe one of the devs will change that 'default' code with a 'later' release. It's a pity that this 'small thing' does not validate strict

, because else CMSms does - awesome.

i think, a lot of other cms' would even be happy, if they could validate transitional

. Amazing, that CMSms does 'produce' such 'clean' code - that rocks!

So that issue with the search-box - at moment - is (for me) a minor and small issue

. Currently i try to get my first templates ready...

Thank you cyberman, take care!

BC
P.S.: cyberman, my English is not the best

, maybe i´ll post next questions in the German section

.

Posted: **Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:43 am**

BlackCats wrote: maybe i´ll post next questions in the German section .

Feel free to post your questions there

...

CMS Made Simple Forums

What´s wrong with default search box and XHTML 1.0 Strict?

What´s wrong with default search box and XHTML 1.0 Strict?

Re: What´s wrong with default search box and XHTML 1.0 Strict?

Re: What´s wrong with default search box and XHTML 1.0 Strict?

Re: What´s wrong with default search box and XHTML 1.0 Strict?

Re: What´s wrong with default search box and XHTML 1.0 Strict?