|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 07/24/07 03:51
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:16:45
GMT rf scribed:
>>> 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.
Well, I _know_ it's wrong! But I am not "playing ostrich" though. It's
just that the Neredbojias-Don't-Bee half of my conscience is overriding
the Neredbojias-Do-Bee half, leaving me a helpless victim in the fray.
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".
Yeah... Awesome to think about, ain't it? 'Course I would never be so
uncouth as to do anything like that.
> Muses: what if the validator suddenly started to validate the
> resultant DOM and not the source? :-)
>
>> Works every time. :)
That, of course, would upset the proverbial apple cart. You do realize I
hardly recommend this technique, I was just sharing the ebullience of one
of my wilder moments.
> 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.
Yep, ought only to be used in a non-critical situation. Actually, it
should _never_ be used, but if one has human failings...
>> 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?
She's probably at the library looking up more cultural cuss words with
which to arm her schizoid psyche.
>> 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.
Yes, I quite agree with you. Nevertheless, sometimes it's fun to be
irreverent in the spirit of a sophist. I often find such
prestidigitation more entertaining than, say, tennis.
--
Neredbojias
Half slips are worth twice as much as whole slips.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|