332987 - Tracking - AMO should use valid html, css, rss feeds & other code

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(addons.mozilla.org Graveyard :: Public Pages, defect)

Description

[Cameron]

None of us needs to know the importance of valid html. 
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/writing/guidelines#validation

So this is a tracking bug for html & css error related bugs.

Comment 1

[Cameron]

Updated description to include other types of code, specifically the rss feeds.

Comment 2

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.addons.mozilla.org%2Fen-US%2Ffirefox%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0

112 validation errors; do we want to wait until our 42 Remora v3.2 bugs [1] are fixed to tackle this?

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&remaction=run&namedcmd=AMO-3.2&sharer_id=240537

Comment 3

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

(In reply to comment #2)
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.addons.mozilla.org%2Fen-US%2Ffirefox%2F&charset=(detect+automatically)&doctype=Inline&group=0
> 
> 112 validation errors; do we want to wait until our 42 Remora v3.2 bugs [1] are
> fixed to tackle this?

Actually, something's way, way wrong with that; there shouldn't be that many.

Comment 4

[Michael Morgan [:morgamic]]

Just to note, we switched to xhtml 1.0 strict.

Comment 5

[Fred Wenzel [:wenzel]]

Really? A lot of the validation bugs we fixed recently were about removing self-closing tags and other minute details in order to conform with HTML4. I am unsure if we should turn around again and re-add all these to switch to XHTML now?

Comment 6

[Justin Scott [:fligtar]]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Just to note, we switched to xhtml 1.0 strict.
> 

Wait, what?!

Comment 7

[AndrewM]

When validating several pages on AMO (just the XHTML), I could only find 3 errors, for example on the main page (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=https%3A%2F%2Faddons.mozilla.org%2Fen-US%2Ffirefox%2F):

there is no attribute "addonName"
there is no attribute "addonIcon"
there is no attribute "addonHash"

Comment 8

[Fred Wenzel [:wenzel]]

Unfortunately, the only way to make this validate is by extending the XHTML DTD with the missing attributes and using that instead of the original XHTML one (as suggested by "A List Apart" (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/customdtd/) and others).

Comment 9

[Basil Hashem [:baz]]

All dependencies have been met.

Comment 10

[Stephen Donner [:stephend] Not actively reading bugmail]

Verified; I think it makes sense just to file individual bugs, moving forward.