Progress indeed!

[Anonymous]

I see things have been moved preatty well for the 'old' php link drectory.

And by pretty well do I mean BIG progress.

I am the coder who, together with David, initiated this script back in early 2004.

By then it had a different engine, less features and no SEF urls but was doing its job fine enough. I am glad now to come back and discover this script isn't dead but exatclly the opposite: greatly improved.

Keeping an eye on this,
Adrian

[David]

Welcome (again) Adrian! 8)

Yes, indeed, Adrian wrote the original script, and much of the code that runs our script (even today) was written by Adrian. I've invited him to post a message here, and hopefully as we have people that can donate, we can also allow him to help us make our script better. Adrian has also created some interesting mods that we don't have here yet including:
1) A completed DMOZ importer
2) Export as html
3) Add extra fields to links

Hopefully, this Fall we can make some more progress with Adrian's help. :)

[kickass]

Welcome, Adrian!

I do hope you're a coder who has respect for us xhtml/css compliance fanatics (wonders if he was the one who put those numeric ID things in the link hrefs . . .) *cracks 6 foot bullwhip*

[vkaryl]

Well, hey then, hello Adrian! This is a pretty great script, apparently you were one of the "orginal originators", so you get some of the kudos here! And maybe you can provide some information on the following little quibbles going on; we'd like to have some idea how/when they happened, and why they don't seem to be easily fixable:

1. unencoded ampersands.... my GODDESS they're a problem, because you just CANNOT get valid pages with them they way they are now

2. numeric IDs in links (for which Casey provided a workaround by slicing out some of the code.... but clean code from the get-go is INFINITELY preferable!) - numerics like that will NEVER validate, and shouldn't have been included by default

3. no call/included code designator for meta description on the home/index/main page - works fine with some of Casey's tweaked code on other category pages, but not on the main page which is a TRUE AND COMPLETE BUMMER, considering the state of the SEs today....

So gee - do you have any bright ideas about whacking those things into shape? Validation/valid code is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT - and so, logically, are the search engines....

[David]

None of those issues are related to Adrian. He created version 1 as seen here http://www.atldanceworld.com/directory.php for example.

[yktan]

Hi Adrian, it's great to be able to know you.

You must be proud that your "baby" has grown up so much. Hope to see you more often here.

Regards,
YK Tan

[vkaryl]

Oh, I see, David....

Well, then. Perhaps Adrian will be able to help you guys figure out how to clean up the problems that apparently got introduced after he "left"....

[David]

Yes, he may help if he has free time. I'm not sure how much "volunteer" work he will do, but maybe we will get lucky. ;)

[Ap0s7le]

Nice to have you Adrian.

A lot of the issues we're having are easily fixed, I'm just not going to be raped by ungreatful people to fix them unless I get some money for it.

I'm sure you understand how that goes.

IM me sometime, it would be nice to get to know you.

Kind Regards

-Casey

[minstrel]

Content visible to registered users only.
Why? Seems to me people get way too hung up on the W3C recommendations. The fact that something doesn't validate by those recommendations (and note I did not say "standards") does NOT make it bad code. IMO, there is a hefty share of arbitrariness and whimsy behind many of the so-designated "deprecated" elements.

If it works and does what it's supposed to do, I couldn't care less about whether it validates or not.

[springdot]

Content visible to registered users only.

I agree... I think too many people get far too hung up on whether the page is "perfectly formed" or not, and don't give enough thought to the actual content , look or feel of their page/site.

Just my 2 pence though - I have no wish to start a flame war. It does wind me up though when people keep going on about things like validation. To my mind, that comes a very distant second to the functionality and feel of a website.

[/rant over]


Cheers
James

[kickass]

If you wanna build a house on a foundation of shifting sand, that's purely up to you. Just don't expect me to clean up the mess . . .

[mikerock]

I agree that people are getting way to hung up on W3C validation. If you go exactly by the standard your pages will not be viewed properly by all browsers and in some cases you will be preventing access to a segment of users.

Just look at most popular websites out there. None of them validate to W3C standards so they can serve the masses. Typically sites that do 100% validate have a small specialized audience in their geek community.

I am not saying we should not strive for validation but flexibility in this area is warranted. I think the devs have done a great job here with the code.

[vkaryl]

*rolls eyes*

My sites validate to XHTML Strict. My sites display the same in every browser that is still viable, including various flavors of Mac-only browsers. It's not particularly difficult to arrange either. And it certainly does NOT require tables for layout.

Each to her own. It's extremely important to me that my sites are prepared to meet the future.

[Nobody]

Content visible to registered users only.

I agree... I think too many people get far too hung up on whether the page is "perfectly formed" or not, and don't give enough thought to the actual content , look or feel of their page/site.

Just my 2 pence though - I have no wish to start a flame war. It does wind me up though when people keep going on about things like validation. To my mind, that comes a very distant second to the functionality and feel of a website.

[/rant over]


Cheers
James[/quote]

I agree. :oops:

[kickass]

I find it interesting that those who spouted off about validation not being as important as appearance are the ones who did the least to change the appearance, functionality and layout of their sites . . . I think your comments speak louder about your willingness to work hard and learn than they do about your true feelings about standards.

Content visible to registered users only.

Most of these sites have been up for years and are working off of legacy dbase and code generation systems that have been in place since way before the current standards were written. Many of these sites ARE being updated but because the code that holds them up and makes them work also has to be updated it is a slow, labor-intensive and drawn out process, especially since they're moneymakers and cannot afford downtime, which complicates the update process even more. So yes, many of the current very popular sites currently show tag soup on the backend. I bet you in three years that picture will change drastically. Your statement that they don't validate so they can "serve the masses" is just plain ridiculous.

[Ap0s7le]

This "debate" is over. All offending post will be removed unless stopped.

It has hijacked another mans post, and isn't necessary.

Thanks

-Casey

[David]

Nothing wrong with having this conversation when SOLUTIONS are being presented. kickass will soon be offering our community a template, and then you can decide if you like it. Until, we really have very little to talk about.

Let's not scare Adrian. :lol:

[mikerock]

Did I miss something, I hope it was not my post that caused this. Going back and reading I did not realize when posting kickass uses "geek" in his tag. That comment was not directed to you bud, it was not my intention to offend you or anyone.

The point I was trying to make is, in the last 15 years I have worked with both the business and technical "geek" side of web publishing. The tech side dictates all users should be using compliant standard browsers (as vkaryl puts it, viable browsers). On the business side no one wants to lock out any segment of users that may be still using non-compliant browsers that do not render CSS properly. I know, ugh. The business side usually wins out.

As I was saying in my earlier post sites should strive for validation but it is not the end of the world and that despite the validation issue I think the devs have done a great job.

To answer kickass reply to me above. These top sites never W3C validated and I think in the future they never will. (although as you hope they do). From what I hear IE7 when it is released still will not adhere to the W3C standard.

Despite all this I am looking forward to seeing kickass CSS template and may put it in to production depending on the site. :)

btw - several sites I support, the pages do not validate but are viewable exactly the same in all browsers, compliant, non-compliant, defunct, etc.

[Ap0s7le]

Hello Mike,

What I was and am annoyed at is that it seems every other post turns to validation and standards, nothing to do with any "geek" comment as I never saw it :)

It just isn't necessary to preach it so much, more will be turned off than willing to join in. What's the old saying? You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar :)

I also look forward to BJ publicly posting the templates, should help the community.

Later

[mikerock]

Content visible to registered users only.

Oh, all that it was not me. :lol:

Ah yes, it seems no matter where the old debate takes place it never does go anywhere. Probably because there is never a happy medium for every visitor no matter which you chose and there is some nice things you just can't get away with in validation.