|
|
Posted by Jim Higson on 11/24/05 17:57
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Jim Higson wrote:
>
>> Just a note, I don't think respecting standards is as much about
>> validtors as people make out,
>
> You're certainly misquoting or misinterpreting some of us "people".
> I'm a firm supporter of valid syntax; but failure to validate is just
> a symptom. Curing the symptom alone is unlikely to cure the disease.
Ok, noted.
>> that's just an easy metric to point to.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> More important for me is creating with the intended spirit of the
>> format.
>
> But IMHO it's not worth the effort of looking at the spirit, if the
> validator says bzzzzzzzzzzt. (With rare and unusual exceptions, e.g
> the mythical <wbr> tag can sometimes have its uses).
I was not talking specifically about examining faulty websites on alt.html
so much as what is important when a developer creates one. Hopefully then
you are taking the effort to look at the spirit. If someone comes to
alt.html with a badly non-validating site, it is completely right to ask
them to get it valid and come back.
There are occasions where non-valid syntax is a kind-of necessary, for
example using that awful AlphaImageLoader stuff in CSS to get IE to display
PNGs properly.
>> I don't think this is about developers as much as the people who pay
>> for the sites. Most people commissioning a site don't know anything
>> about web standards, so with no increased payout for creating
>> quality there's no incentive for the web developers to improve their
>> sites.
>
> When you commission an architect etc. for building you a house, surely
> you expect them to comply with the applicable building codes - even
> those you are not aware of yourself? Why should it be different for
> building web sites?
It shouldn't, but unfortunately it is.
Probably because most people at least know that building codes exist. I
don't think most people know the W3C exists.
--
Jim
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|