|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 08/25/05 07:09
ben wrote :
> omg, what is your issue. i was asking for some help, christ. so, in
> response to your comments (just to be polite)
>
[snipped]
Several people read your post requesting assistance. And the very first
thing we most likely all did was to check your webpage markup validity.
And like others have told you, the very first thing to fix when dealing
with layout or a problem in a page is to fix markup errors.
> do you honestly expect anyone to change a 700 line document using
> tables for layout, to CSS just to find 1 error !
Yes and there are documents, tutorials on helping you converting to CSS.
The validator reports 150+ markup errors in your page.
> it is a little much,
> don't you think? others dont have to troubleshoot, they may have
> experienced the same problem and found a sensible/easier resolution.
>
You do not understand how important the process of fixing markup errors
is. An invalid webpage may look perfectly ok to you in your specific
browser but it may look/render differently and may work differently for
your visitors.
>
>>Obviously not if it doesn't validate. Or perhaps this is some strange
>>meaning of the term "technically correct" that I wasn't previously aware
>>of.
>
>
> that particular validator is preparing documents to be xhtml ready,
> with closing tags for all tags - which isnt the way most sites are
> completed. <br \> instead of <br>. by technically correct, yes, it
> rendered correctly, so surely the code was correct in essence.
We may never know ... until you fix those errors.
its
> purpose is to display the page in a certain way, and it does, whether
> the means of doing so are perfect are a different matter.
>
You do not understand ...
>
>>Contradicting yourself doesn't help your argument.
>
>
> i wasnt arguing, i admitted there was flaws with my code !
>
>
>>A mere coincidence. If your code is not valid, then the fact that a
>>browser happens to correctly guess what you intended is pure luck.
>
>
> coincidence my ass, show me one website that is 100% flawless (using
> the w3c validator).
>
Well, my site. David's site: 41 pages checked 100% flawless. Mark's site
is certainly fine too: 12 markup errors out of 47 pages.
>
>>And the first step in that solution is to validate the code.
>
>
> grr.
>
>
>
> look, to be honest, i listened to what you had to say, and i thanked
> you for it. you didn't really help with my original post by starting
> flaming. the idea is to assist, if you obviously dont understand and
> cannot help, then don't post a response.
[snipped]
The very first way to help you is to tell you to remove the validation
errors, the markup errors. There is nothing, absolutely nothing better
to do when dealing with layout issues.
> ps. Internet explorer doesnt conform to standards anyway. so if a page
> was validated 100% it still wont strictly display in IE as it would in
> another conforming browser
In standards compliant rendering mode, MSIE 6 rendering complies much
better with web standards: the CSS1 box model is correctly implemented
in standards compliant rendering mode. IE 7 will fix many more bugs:
already we know that all CSS 1 and many CSS 2.1 bugs (> 24 bugs) have
already been fixed for IE 7 beta 2.
"In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit
as we can, and we will add the critical most-requested features from the
standards as well."
C. Wilson, July 29th 2005
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
[Back to original message]
|