Checking the Corolla theme on my site causes the W3C validator to complain about several issues. This needs to be addressed so the theme validates properly.

Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:content not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:content is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:dc not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:dc is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:foaf not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:foaf is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
?
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:og not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:og is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:rdfs not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:rdfs is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:sioc not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:sioc is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:sioct not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:sioct is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:skos not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:skos is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute xmlns:xsd not allowed here.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 15, Column 48: Attribute with the local name xmlns:xsd is not serializable as XML 1.0.
  xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#"><!--<![endif]-->
Line 21, Column 45: Bad value MobileOptimized for attribute name on element meta: Keyword mobileoptimized is not registered.
<meta name="MobileOptimized" content="width">
Syntax of metadata name:
A metadata name listed in the HTML specification or listed in the WHATWG wiki. You can register metadata names on the WHATWG wiki yourself.
Line 22, Column 45: Bad value HandheldFriendly for attribute name on element meta: Keyword handheldfriendly is not registered.
<meta name="HandheldFriendly" content="true">
Syntax of metadata name:
A metadata name listed in the HTML specification or listed in the WHATWG wiki. You can register metadata names on the WHATWG wiki yourself.
Line 24, Column 42: Bad value cleartype for attribute http-equiv on element meta.
<meta http-equiv="cleartype" content="on">
Line 25, Column 63: Bad value X-UA-Compatible for attribute http-equiv on element meta.
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge, chrome=1">

Comments

Category:bug» feature
Status:Active» Closed (won't fix)

You are trying to validate against a schema that can't handle what this theme is doing, you would need to remove those things the schema was never designed to handle before validating.

Please do not try to argue this because I am never going to change it. These technologies Adaptivetheme and Corolla use are important requirements for the mobile web and RDFa support - the WSC schema's are very narrow in their scope and don't account for many things such as standard meta tags used in mobile sites and improved support for IE users:

<meta name="MobileOptimized" content="width">
<meta name="HandheldFriendly" content="true">
<meta http-equiv="cleartype" content="on">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge, chrome=1">

Status:Closed (won't fix)» Active

Okay, then I won't argue the case with you, but let me make two comments.

First of all this is a problem for people wanting to use those such themes for websites by government (or government funded) websites, which in some countries also includes education institutions. Here it is often a requirement that websites follow accessibility standards (and quite rightly so) - and that tends to include that the x/html validates correctly. Depending on how this is interpreted, you are blocking all of those people from using the theme.

Second, if you have decided that that does not matter for you that is obviously your choice, but it would be nice to make the obvious, if not on the page then at least in the readme.

Also, "you would need to remove those things the schema was never designed to handle before validating" does perhaps address the issue of getting through the validation, but one would have to do that every single time a new version of the theme comes out, so I don't think it is that practical. In an ideal world there would be a button that allows people like me to disable all the features that don't validate (until there is a schema that includes them), but from the sound of things I would assume that this is not something that is likely to happen.

Anyway, how about at least adding a line or two to the readme explaining 1) that it does not validate and 2) the reasons why?

Status:Active» Closed (won't fix)

Some governments do use Adaptivetheme core, I know they do, for a fact, and have made changes to remove some of the meta tags, as this is really the only thing that will trip validation as these are vendor specific meta tags.

These days we tend use lint tools to check for well-formdness and outlining tools because most validators are so woefully out of touch of the reality of building websites that actually work.

If you ask me to choose between a framework that gets the job done and fails this or that validation schema and one that passes but fails miserably at the tasks at hand - which one do you think I am going to choose?

I don't see why I should put a note in that this fails some schema you decided was important, most modern websites and developers are doing all the things this framework does, its not just me, this is thousands and thousands of websites and other framework rolling out this technology. The onus is on you to find technology that works for you, not me to put scary warnings about things that quite frankly are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Different countries have different laws, and the practice is different too - as is the way major organisations decide to implement it. I was just pointing out that your decision is blocking some potential users from using your theme. If the functionality you gain more than balances that for you then that is good for you. I face a policy that says that websites must validate against W3C standards, whether I like that or not is another topic. As long as you aware of that and have factored it in, which you have, there is not more to say on that aspect.

Allow me just to add one thing:

The onus is on you to find technology that works for you

That is obviously always the case and is such a general comment that it could be used to block any bug report or feature request. I also never suggested to put a "scary" warning in there - I would have found it useful and it would have saved me time, and I know others for whom that would also be the case. It also seems to me that there are still lots and lots of websites that validate against W3C, including drupal.org. Again, that does not say that you have to include a message, but it is perhaps also not as outlandish to call it "meaningless".

True, its meaningful for you, but for the great majority it would be a scary warning for something that otherwise as little to no impact on them at all. Not everyone understands the finer points of this debate.

When someone makes a feature request or bug report I weigh it up, as I have every single line of code in these themes. I have to balance off many competing interests, requirements and so on. This is not easy, and on this topic (W3C validation) I am well aware of the issues you are raising - what I have tended to do is punt for the 80% in this version, to support what 80% of users want and need to get the job done, rather than attempting to support everything and force users to do all the research and coding to figure out what they need to do to support mobile and the requirements of the modern web - which is the whole point of this theme. To remove this stuff would undermine the whole point of building such a theme.

I suppose you could view "The onus is on you to find technology that works for you" as a catch all blocker, but I don't really see it that way - there are lots of starter themes and many do validate, Genesis for example. The reality is I can never know or support 100% of your requirements, I can only attempt a best guess based on experience. This is true of any project, we are merely having a good go at it. Furthermore we can't just shoehorn every request, otherwise our software would be incredibly bloated and un-maintainable. At some point we have to make the difficult decisions about what we will support and how. This is why its up to you to find something that works for you - its impossible for me to predict this and write a note for every single use case this might not support or live up to for your requirement.

That's fine and I fully understand those decisions. Not knowing about the background I felt it important to raise these points as I found in the past that there are still too many theme developers who don't even seem to be aware of those issues. You are clearly aware of them and have thought this through, so case closed, I would say. Let's hope that W3C valuation practice and development will meet again at some point!

Project:Corolla» AdaptiveTheme
Version:7.x-2.2» 7.x-2.x-dev

Moving project, this is not really a Corolla thing.

makes sense to me. I have an idea. how about an option for validation? I can contribute on that if you want.

Component:Code» CSS/HTML

I agree with TfR75's arguments and thoughts. My first impression was that the theme is nice and exactly what I need. Castomized it for several days, got all the points and ... finally recognized the validation problem, for "Markup Validation Service" (20 Errors, 16 warning(s) and for "W3C mobileOK Checker" (75%). For Drupal 6 simple theme I was able to correct the W3C mistakes just by hands. Here, as far as I understood the discussion, that is not a case...

Please do not try to argue this because I am never going to change it. These technologies Adaptivetheme and Corolla use are important requirements for the mobile web and RDFa support - the WSC schema's are very narrow in their scope and don't account for many things such as standard meta tags used in mobile sites and improved support for IE users:

Can anybody make simple conclusion for novice users on the issue? We have to forget on W3C? Then where should we check markup corectness instead? Or we can correct by hands something? Actually my site did not go through mobility check as well, while the real reason I installed Corolla and Adapptive was in "mobile OK" idea... Is it reasonable to expect the problem will be resolved? Any simple for installing alternatives for mobile ready theme?