nwfast Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 This may be a no-brainer, but you can never be sure..... I was just curious as to whether any developers out there have created or are working to develop a valid, W3c-compliant version of osCommerce. I've been working to create my own highly stripped-down version of osCommerce that is not so reliant on tables. It's amazing how much smaller the file size can be without all those <td> tags. Eventually, I would like to do away with tables all together. Anyone else working on something similar?
djenniex Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 Hi, There is a blog started that is developing a pure css based oscommerce. The site is called Devhype. That's the only site that I know of that is doing anything about the web standards in oscommerce.
Guest Posted January 11, 2005 Posted January 11, 2005 We are slugging away at it slowly but surely, ground work is complete now just cleaning up and tweaking a few other things. I'd love to post a link to the demo but as I have been told forums and contribs are not a means to gain traffic to your own site. Funny thing is, DevHype offers no professional services (on that specific site) other then free work provided to the community, the gained traffic benefits the community, not us.
nwfast Posted January 12, 2005 Author Posted January 12, 2005 We are slugging away at it slowly but surely, ground work is complete now just cleaning up and tweaking a few other things. I'd love to post a link to the demo but as I have been told forums and contribs are not a means to gain traffic to your own site. Funny thing is, DevHype offers no professional services (on that specific site) other then free work provided to the community, the gained traffic benefits the community, not us. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is awesome -- I feel that the heavy dependence on tables is osCommerce's biggest flaw. But it's definitely something that can be overcome. You definitely have to be willing to roll up your sleeves and get knee-deep in code, though. Anyone else working on a w3C compliant version?
Guest Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 There is a contribution that makes it compliant...search the contrbution area. Bobby
Guest Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 I'd love to post a link to the demo<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I managed to find it, and I'm really impressed DevHype! :thumbsup:
Guest Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Being compliant is a whole different story. Compliance, usability, and standards are the hard parts. Unfortunately as we go through and correct those things, the farther and farther this project seems to get away from the core osc release. The amount of functions that needed to be changed to get it to this point is unreal. I would estimate that about 40 to 55% of the code base has been changed, catalog side... and its no where near complete for usability as far I am concerned. I have a feeling that the core team is gonna take one look at it and scream fork in our faces before we can even release it.
NiceGuyEd Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 There is a contribution that makes it compliant...search the contrbution area. Bobby <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Could you post a link to that contrib Bobby? I can't seem to find it. :)
Guest Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Could you post a link to that contrib Bobby? I can't seem to find it. :) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> valid XHTML Catalog Side 2.3 heres one i wrote
NiceGuyEd Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Thanks for the reply. So I take it, this isn't a good idea to run on a store that isn't a fresh install? I currently have the download controller, Auth.net 1.7, and centershop contributions installed.
Guest Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Thanks for the reply. So I take it, this isn't a good idea to run on a store that isn't a fresh install? I currently have the download controller, Auth.net 1.7, and centershop contributions installed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right, however those are easy installs to re-add. Keep in mind that it maynot re-validate after you install them... keep an eye on them and go over em before you reinstall and make any corrections. It may be easier just to find one that validates for html instead of xhtml, depending on what your needs and skills are.
gregy Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 i managed my site to be valid but only for html 4.01 .. xhtml .. no way :thumbsup:
Guest Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 this is very, very important for many reasons. I hope the core team makes this a priority.
nwfast Posted January 14, 2005 Author Posted January 14, 2005 Being compliant is a whole different story. Compliance, usability, and standards are the hard parts. Unfortunately as we go through and correct those things, the farther and farther this project seems to get away from the core osc release. The amount of functions that needed to be changed to get it to this point is unreal. I would estimate that about 40 to 55% of the code base has been changed, catalog side... and its no where near complete for usability as far I am concerned. I have a feeling that the core team is gonna take one look at it and scream fork in our faces before we can even release it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True. It's not necessarily hard -- just demanding and very time-consuming. I totally know and understand what you're saying about the amount of functions that you've had to change. On my project, I'd say that I've changed roughly 65-70% of the catalog code base thus far. At this point, my version is merely a derivative of the core osC release. I'm not especially concerned with that, however. My principle efforts are going towards speed, efficiency, and compliance.
New 
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.