|
|
Posted by rf on 07/23/07 10:16
"Neredbojias" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99761BA00AE49nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:28:16
> GMT Jukka K. Korpela scribed:
>
>> Scripsit Neredbojias:
>>
>>>> I followed ya'lls lead and suggestions and can not put the W3C
>>>> validation seal on that page.
>>>
>>> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? According to your first post, you could have
>>> done that by simply using the correct doctype.
>>
>> But maybe he found my page on "HTML validation" and realized that the
>> "W3C validation seal" is worse than useless. :-)
>
> Deep down inside I can't honestly argue with that. Here's a confession I
> probably shouldn't be making: whenever I want to "slip" something
> "untoward" through ye olde validator, I put it in a j/s document.write.
A good confession, but for the wrong reasons. (I also find that I need to
confess: I agree with Korpela on this.)
You want to do something that you *know* will not validate, so you use a
construct that bypasses the validator and introduces a layer of obfuscation
as well. Sorry, head in sand approach IMHO. You know you are "doing wrong"
but if you hide in the javascript sandbox then perhaps nobody will notice.
Crikey, with this approach your page could be one single JS call that
commits all sorts if infractions, including using <font> elements, and still
"validate".
Muses: what if the validator suddenly started to validate the resultant DOM
and not the source? :-)
> Works every time. :)
Except when javascript is disabled and then you lose content for the 10% or
so, for no other reason than the exhalted goal of validation.
> I have an iframe somewhere in a 4.01 strict page
> which validates perfectly. Yeah, I know, -I'm sooooooooo bad.
dorayme, where are you now?
> Nevertheless, I think the validator serves a useful puprose and I'm glad
> it
> exists. One shouldn't take its results as "the word of God", however.
The validator exists to validate to the published standard. However even
strict languages like C++ allow one to turn off their "validation" warnings
if there is a need to do so. I personally treat the HTML validator as a
cleanup the typos tool.
If you have cause to go outside the standards, for whatever reason, and
mostly those reasons are to be able to survive in the *real* world, then do
so.
Perhaps include a comment in the source to the effect that you are including
an iframe for *this* reason. Perhaps you are writing a CMS where an iframe
is compulsory given the poor browser support for editable content. Nobody
will mind, except the "no tables" purists (and yes, I do use tables for
layout when nothing else will work).
Your client will never know, or even care, or even know that she might need
to care. Job done.
--
Richard.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|