Posted by Bone Ur on 11/29/07 21:34

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:11:45
GMT Mika scribed:

>> That's open to interpretation, but my beef with you is that you're
>> using non-standard markup (ie: incorrect) in your page, calling it
>> correct, and defending your position by stating that is has to be
>> that way to work.
>
> It is largely and I mean 99.9% correct. The bits that are not, it is
> true, are not able to be changed - otherwise believe me we would have.
> We have done a lot that the nicer folks here have suggested - a LOT.
>
> The site is W3C CSS compliant, but even the single digits objects that
> give doctype validation issues are completely irrelevant to anyone who
> doesn't know or care what a doctype is. It is wrong to assume that
> the Great British shopping public would first run a test to see if the
> site has any inconsistencies in its code! The errors work.
>
> Simply, they load it up, it appears in about 5 seconds, and they go
> shopping.
>
> The major differences of opinion here are through some here's
> inability to understand that:
>
> A) They live in the USA. All our shops deliver to the UK. Hence
> commenting on this UK site being slow across international server hops
> is about as relevant as saying Google China is displayed in the wrong
> language for Americans.
>
> B) You are all conditioned to look at the 'code' of a site. The huge
> majority of surfers however only look at the 'end result' of a site as
> it displays. To try to remember that just because your world is 100%
> everything to you, it is nothing to others. The markup you refer to
> as invalid, still works 100% intact in any browser! You and a
> validation site reporting an "error" does not mean it is broken! The
> elements that are in 'error' work perfectly. If only you and I know
> that a validation site thinks it is not right, who on earth does that
> affect the browsing experience of? I have never understood that.
> These errors all function 100% perfectly! What harp on about them
> then? Is that important to you, that they work well, but some website
> says they are wrong? Who cares? I shouldn't be cause they cause no
> issue whatsoever at all zilch nada.

Regarding this markup which you proclaim works, have you checked it
against every possibly condition under which it should work as it
supposedly does?

Whatever, I am tired of arguing about this and I'm sure you are, too. I
will concede that pages can sometimes function in general with certain
invalid markup - you see it all the times on The Web. However, that
doesn't give an author who knows better any excuse to create such a page,
and a valid solution should be found rather than relying on empirical
conditions.

>> a change _must_
>> be made in order to have a viable website. Anything less is a hack
>> and one
>> fundamental reason why so many sites today just functionally suck.
>> If you want a valid, well-operating page then you have to make it the
>> same way, not rely on dubious shortcuts. Since you seem to be in
>> self-denial over that concept, my remark was quite valid and
>> accurate.
>
> As said over and over again, and prolly for the last time now, this is
> the UK portal. When/if we get that far in the UK, and launch a USA
> portal, rest assured it will be hosted on USA servers and thus load in
> 5 seconds for you too. Please try to grasp this fact as it is so
> tiresome and is what I have said from the start. This is a *UK*
> website.
>
> Long live the Queen!

Nothing against the current monarch, but I think I actually prefer a
King. There's just something about calling someone in bloomers "Your
majesty" which goes against the grain. 'Course, I s'pose ol' queenie
could be prancing 'round the palace without proper panties, but that
still doesn't change my opinion of ruling royal genders.

--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.

[Back to original message]