Site Suggestions

Tuesday January 8th, 2002

A few of you have asked for us to post a news item taking your suggestions for the site, so here it is. Tell us all your ideas for what we can do to improve the site. Anything you want we'll think about, but try to keep it realistic.

Just to keep you updated, one of the things we're planning on working on is getting the ChromeZone up again, if we can find some volunteer editors to help organize themes. If you're interested, please email me and I'll get back to you sometime this week.

UPDATE! Right now we're working on dumping all the tables and other old HTML within the site to both show off Mozilla's skills, and to get our file sizes smaller. If you're using Communicator to view the site, you'll notice everything looking pretty ugly, thanks to the poor CSS support it offers. If you're using IE, it'll look a bit better, but thanks to IE's lacking CSS2 support, the sidebar will show up incorrectly. We've completely redone the homepage and talkback code, and we'll be working on the forums next.

UPDATE 2! We discovered Google's great "Search Site" feature, and have added it. Right now it has most areas of the site indexed except news item talkback pages. It will start indexing talkback today, and will hopefully add all of the old items, in addition to picking up the new ones.

UPDATE 3! We've been working hard to get as many of your suggestions as possible implemented, and we encourage you to continue the feedback. You can check this article's responses for what items we have fixed, or are working on.

#78 Use the validator!

by sacolcor

Saturday January 12th, 2002 9:50 PM

You are replying to this message

The easiest way to get this site in place quickly is to run it through the validator at <>

One recommendation I\'d have is to start by writing the pages to the /transitional/ DTD, and using the following DOCTYPE:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC \"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN\">

Converting to this DOCTYPE will be a lot easier than going straight to strict (trust me, I know). Run the pages through the validator with this DOCTYPE until all the errors are gone. One of the most common ones I see when I do it is unescaped need to replace all instances of literal ampersands on the page (including those in bugzilla queries) with the ampersand HTML entity.

Once everything validates properly using the transitional DTD, then switch to the strict one, and go through another debugging cycle with the validator. Or leave it...I\'d actually be happy just to have the site just using valid transitional HTML for a while, and it\'d probably make it easier to accomodate other, less standard-compliant browsers, too.