Posted by Mark Parnell on 08/25/05 05:50

Previously in alt.html, ben <lessani@gmail.com> said:

> do you honestly expect anyone to change a 700 line document using
> tables for layout, to CSS just to find 1 error !

Why not? Besides, you said it was dynamically generated from MySQL
anyway, so it would only mean changing the script, not every line of the
resulting HTML. It really *shouldn't* be that hard. Obviously I don't
have access to your scripts, so it's hard to say. But in theory it
shouldn't take that much effort.

> that particular validator is preparing documents to be xhtml ready,
> with closing tags for all tags

Only if you claim to be using XHTML by putting an XHTML doctype on your
page. You can't blame the validator for doing what you ask it to.

> which isnt the way most sites are
> completed. <br \> instead of <br>.

Your site is a mix of HTML (e.g. <br>) and XHTML (e.g. <link ... /> and
<img ... />) syntax. You really should just pick one and stick with it.
That's a large part of your validation errors right there.

> by technically correct, yes, it
> rendered correctly, so surely the code was correct in essence.

Not necessarily. Browsers will make an attempt to render any code. But
as I said before, if the code is not right in the first place, it is a
matter of pure luck as to whether the browsers manages to come up with
the same result as you are intending/expecting. And different browsers
will likely interpret it differently.

> show me one website that is 100% flawless (using
> the w3c validator).

The one in my .sig. And that of most of the other regulars here. And all
those listed on http://www.w3csites.com/. Plenty of others.

> look, to be honest, i listened to what you had to say, and i thanked
> you for it.

I think you're confusing me with David, who replied to your first couple
of posts.

> you didn't really help with my original post by starting
> flaming.

It wasn't a flame.

> the idea is to assist,

Generally, that's why I'm here. But that's not why Usenet exists. Usenet
is for discussion. If your question happens to get answered along the
way, good for you. But that is incidental to the discussion.

> if you obviously dont understand and

Which I do.

> cannot help, then don't post a response.

I will post responses to whatever I like, thank you.

> if what you are going to say
> isnt helpful, then dont say it (i say this in reference to the post i
> quoted on).

Again, I will post whatever I like. If you don't like it, add me to your
killfile if you want (but you're using Google Groups, so you don't have
a killfile - never mind).

Anyway, my post was intended to help. If you didn't take it that way,
that's your problem, not mine.

> so, THANK YOU, but you clearly are not providing any assistance.

You are not accepting my assistance. That's different, and your loss.

> ps. Internet explorer doesnt conform to standards anyway.

No browser does.

> so if a page
> was validated 100% it still wont strictly display in IE as it would in
> another conforming browser

Even IE is pretty good when it comes to straight HTML. CSS is less well
supported, but IME it's much easier to code a valid page, then add
workarounds for browsers that don't display it correctly; than throw
together any random code, and just hope that it displays the way you
want it to. In the latter case, if it doesn't display as expected, you
have no way of knowing whether it's your code that's the problem, or a
browser bug. At least if your code is valid in the first place, you know
that it isn't your code that's the problem, which makes troubleshooting
and working around the problem much easier.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
alt.html FAQ :: http://html-faq.com/

[Back to original message]