vbulletin fails W3C compliance tests

Yep, being bored I tried to check your page for W3C compliance.
Here is what i got for the main page.

Quote:

---

HTML Validation Service Results
Document Checked
URI: http://www.vbforums.com/
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a PHP/4.0.6
Content length: 43896
Character encoding: unknown
Document type: HTML 4.01 Transitional


<snip>Error Messages Here and the reasons here</snip>


Result:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML 4.01 Transitional.

If you use CSS in your document, you should also check it for validity using the W3C CSS Validation Service.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

When will you get this logo http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2001/08/2.jpg ?

You've got some 508 compliancy work to do, John:

http://bobby.cast.org/bobby?URL=http...w.vbforums.com

:p

Who gives a blow, it works fine for everyone doesn't it?

Meeting the Prescribed standards is the way to go, especially for a commercial quality product. I wonder why vBulletin still didn't jump in to the XHTML 1.0 - bandwagon. At least, the marketing department will be a lot happier ! ;)

Firstly, don't look at the rubbish headers and footers that we have here on VB-World. The HTML there is designed to be functional, not W3C compliant :)

vBulletin is very nearly HTML 4.01 compliant - as near as we could get it while still making it look pretty using IE's bells and whistles. However, we plan for the next version of vBulletin to be fully XHTML compatible, using almost all CSS rather than HTML for layout and design, so that should reduce page size.

John

Did I hear someone mention smaller page sizes? :p

Can I have a rant here? The main reason why a lot of pages are so sloppily coded (no offence to anyone :)) is because the browser authors decided to cater for every situation and attempt to make it work with bad code. Fair enough, however, then there's no reason for the authors to make their code work.

And that's just one of the many things that I've decided annoy me :)