|
|
Posted by Alan J. Flavell on 11/24/05 23:26
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Jim Higson wrote:
> > 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.
Fair comment
> Hopefully then you are taking the effort to look at the spirit.
If it's a site that offers me something that I want to use, then I'll
try to use it. It's only if/when that fails that I start trawling its
internals, honest!
[...]
> 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 understand what you're saying. It's a pity we can't just feed that
back-level browser-like object with the back-level content that suits
it. Yes, I know...
> > 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.
They maybe don't know that there's /any/ interworking specifications,
let alone the W3C's. But without interworking specifications, of
various kinds, their Internet connection would be useless.
all the best.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|