Posted by Simon on 06/14/05 16:37

>> I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
>> rules given by W3c.
>
> No, not all validating sites are good ones. I bet I can make a really
> crappy site, with lots of peek-a-boo bugs to annoy all the IE users,
> and still have it validated.

Sorry, I did not mean good as good to look at, but rather that it followed
the rules and was likely to work as expected on a well behaved browser.

>
>> Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?
>
> Depends on the type of error. Most errors are better avoided though.
>
>> My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
>> should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
>> page validate.
>>
>> So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?
>
> I reckon it should.
> And if a designer can't make their dreamweaver code valid, they don't
> know how to use the program correctly? There is of course a difference
> between someone who allows certain 'errors' to exist, and someone who
> simply doesn't /know/ how to make a validating site. Hasn't got
> anything to do with dreamweaver afaik.

I don't know dreamweaver myself, I just thought it was one of those editor
that was not very flexible.
Unless you edit the templates directly.

Simon

[Back to original message]