Bug CSS warnings: Chris Pederick's Web Developer 1.1.9

Thanks Sozz your help is appreciated and I understand what you're saying but I like the make things the best I can and the css is generally not a biggy to fix up, I thought it may be a matter of choosing the joomla css over Kunena, just a checkbox or something.
With millions of site aiming to get to first page of google the site with the most relevant info and purest coding comes first in my experience, also I haven't had these css warnings with past versions just the latest one on the latest Joomla, kunena has always been very pure sweet coding hence why I've gone with it!
So I'd still like to fix it as I'd like to use it as a template on a few other sites.
Cheers Sozz!

As you say, it all depends on what is the main purpose for which you have created your site.

For some people - for most people who use this forum - the main reason they have created their sites is because they want a reliable, durable, robust product that grows to meet their needs and that facilitates web-based discussions among their members. For some people, their main concern is to ensure that their website ranks foremost on Google. Occasionally these two objectives may be incompatible with one another, that is a site can be ranked foremost by Google irrespectively of whether the site is actually enjoyed by a community to discuss that community's interests.

This website ( www.kunena.org ) ranks fairly well in the search engine stakes. The forum here is actively used and enjoyed by its members. It may be a fact that this website (like thousands of sites on the net) would show that some CSS or Javascript issues by employing tools like Chris Pederick's Web Developer . And I have to say - with no offence to you or to the developer of Web Developer - so what? I'm not trying to trivialise or be dismissive here, I'm merely trying to put things into fair and proper perspective.

I haven't used Web Developer myself. I don't know if members of the Kunena development team have used Web Developer - I can't speak for them - but maybe someone should look into this. Have you, Rockbox, used this tool on www.kunena.org and what findings have you discovered about this site? Do those findings reflect the same things as you have at your site?

If you discover different issues at your site (different from what you see here at www.kunena.org ) then you probably should ask what are the sources of those differences? This site uses the same basic K 1.7.2 software with the Kunena Blue Eagle template that is created when people install the installation kit from the download page.

Rockbox wrote:

With millions of site aiming to get to first page of Google the site with the most relevant info and purest coding comes first in my experience.

Interesting philosophy. What comes foremost for me is a site that is used and enjoyed by those who are interested in the activities of the site no matter how they discovered it; Google is only one part of that process of discovery.

Yes, some search engines do penalise developers who have sloppy code. Sometimes the penalties are minor and sometimes they're not and sometimes it's worthwhile cleaning up the code to the best that you can. But, at some point along the path, the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in and that's also something you should keep in mind, too.

A few things to think about here and, no doubt, keep us all entertained for a long while to come.

Did I say this: "As you say, it all depends on what is the main purpose for which you have created your site." ??
I'm not here for a debate or to discuss philosophy just want to know if someone knows and can explain to me in detail a way of fixing these warnings.
To answer your question re kunena .org does it reflect similar/same warnings the answer is yes.
So my question is regarding CSS warnings in the latest version of kunena, does anyone know?
Thanks in advance.

I paraphrased. No, you did not use those exact words. Yes, the tool does throw those same warnings on K.org (we've been discussing this topic behind the scenes and my colleagues can confirm these things).

The question is "Does this technical issue require a solution?" That's something each web developer must answer for him/herself. Should these technical problems be matters to be worried about? Again, that's a question each web developer must answer for themselves.

Work is ongoing to continually improve Kunena so that, in future versions, these kinds of things will not occur (or not occur to the extent that people will see evidence of them today). The matters you have brought to our attention will be dealt with, more constructively, as we go forward and develop K 2.0. Will they be dealt with in K 1.7.2? Almost certainly, because K 1.7 is now at end-of-life, the answer is no.

Can users have confidence that we and they have done everything humanly possible to remedy these kinds of issues? That's a bit like the "how long is a piece of string" question. We're doing what we can with the resources that we have at our disposal.

Is this a problem that requires an urgent solution? Again, that's something we can talk about. I would be interested to hear what others may have to say and would like to contribute to this topic.

Can they be fixed? In all probability, these things can be fixed. But, while anything is possible, everything has a cost. So, really, perhaps the question might better be asked "Should these problems be fixed?" ... and that is something that I cannot answer with certainty.

fair enough, it's a great!! component and very much appreciated,I'll wait for the next version. the social networking integration looks excellent and just what I need for a new site I'm slowly working on.
I do realise what you are saying and agree with it, it's a lot of work creating a program like Kunena more than I can comprehend

many thanks
Steve

I know this is a few weeks old, but I thought I would mention one thing. As I was looking at the CSS errors that are happening with FF I got to checking a few out. If you were to do a search for lets say "css filter" you would find that this is a IE specific CSS property. So in short you could correct these simply if you did not want cross browser compliant by just removing them. Or by finding a better way to style the CSS for those errors so that it will be compliant with both FF and IE at the same time. What FF is doing is that it sees these IE specific CSS properties and just drops them due to that they are either not supported or not needed.

Hope that helps a little bit for ya.

Jake