Take out move/glow/shadow?

[Owdy]

But if you can get these functions as a MOD? 

[Acf]

do you realy think that i am going to read that?

[Grudge]

I think if 1/3 of people want them to stay then that's a big enough proportion to justify keeping them. It's much easier for people to remove them if they don't want them than to have to install a MOD to add in old functionality. I wouldn't be against adding an option for "Enable additional UBB tags", which would turn them on. That seems like a good compromise to me. It can be off by default and the help can say "enabling this will make your page non-XHTML compliant".

[Peter Duggan]

Personally, take away the move function, and you take away one of the strong points that guided me to moving from my last board software, to the SMF software.

It's not the 'move' function itself I'm so against, but the invalid code that it requires. Standards are standards, so partial compliance isn't good enough to claim validation. And, talking about strong points, it was YaBB SE 1.0's claimed HTML compliance that first attracted me 'here' when no other bulletin board software seemed to care about such things!

It can be off by default and the help can say "enabling this will make your page non-XHTML compliant".

Since this came up when I previewed my post, I'd just like to add that (cumbersome as it sounds) it should really strip out the validator link too!

[[Unknown]]

So the validation can fail if they use move.  I think the point of the link is that the site is valid, not that the posts are.

-[Unknown]

[Oldiesmann]

Is it really all that important to be XHTML 1.0 complient?

[[Unknown]]

Yes.

-[Unknown]

[A.M.A]

what Grudge said.

[[Unknown]]

I'm not going to take them out unless 80% or more want them out.

-[Unknown]

[whiterabbit]

In my software creator point of view (not micro$oft view),
take out anything non standard and things that not working at all case
because they make your software look really bad.

If user like to have them just create a mod or an add-on.

You see how bad micro$oft reputation is.

[RoCKeT-88]

Is it really all that important to be XHTML 1.0 complient?

Absolutely not.

[Chris Cromer]

Actually it is important for accessability as well as cross-browser support.

[Ben_S]

I agree with Grudge, take the buttons out but leave it so it is still parsed, if someone really wants the buttons, they can add em in fairly easilly.

[[Unknown]]

Is it really all that important to be XHTML 1.0 complient?

Absolutely not.

Too bad, I disagree.  Yuo don't have to care about standards but we do.

-[Unknown]

[Peter Duggan]

Is it really all that important to be XHTML 1.0 complient?

Absolutely not.

Here we go again!

Peter - What exactly are those reasons? *you may be able to sway my opinion*

Sorry if this is kinda passing the buck (it's really late here), but this is probably a good place to start:

http://www.webstandards.org/learn/faq/

And a few short quotes from this article might persuade you to take a look:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/betterliving/

If you want your site to work well in today?s browsers and non?traditional devices, and to continue to work well in tomorrow?s, it?s a good idea to author new sites in XHTML, and to convert old pages to XHTML as your work schedule permits.

With valid markup and CSS, compliant browsers tend to render your site as you expect, with exceptions to be discussed below. With invalid XHTML or CSS, all bets are off, and you can?t blame the browsers. (Well, you can, but it wouldn?t be fair and it won?t do you a bit of good.)

When in ?standards? mode, a compliant browser assumes that you know what you?re doing and displays your page per W3C specs. In ?Quirks? mode, the browser surmises that you?ve crafted an old?fashioned, probably invalid page, and displays it as an older browser might. You control which tack the browser takes by including or excluding a complete (X)HTML doctype.

With a little care and feeding, XHTML will help your sites work better in more browsers and devices, thus reaching greater numbers of readers, now and for years to come. What more could you ask?

[Gobalopper]

Not that the decision should be based on this but does other forum software have these three tags?

[Chris Cromer]

SMF, YaBB, and YaBBSE have all 3.

OpenBB has glow.

So the answer is... the other bb's don't have them(with exception of glow in openBB).

[Amacythe]

I wouldn't be against adding an option for "Enable additional UBB tags", which would turn them on. That seems like a good compromise to me. It can be off by default and the help can say "enabling this will make your page non-XHTML compliant".

I think that since you already have them written in, and there are some of us that utilize them, this is the best option.  I for one would want to keep the options.  Many of my members use the glow and shadow font and I personally use the marquee option when posting birthday posts.  A string of moving balloons seems to grab the attention of people and makes a simple thread more like a party.

[Acf]

test
test

those 2 above can't even be seen by opera...

[Chris Cromer]

those 2 above can't even be seen by opera...

Or firefox...

3 tags that are either not compliant, not cross-browser compatable, and are all annoying.