Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 05/06/06 20:01

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote:
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> skrev i meddelandet
<sip>
>> No, a validator is a good and useful tool, but are it is not a
>> substitute for knowing what you are doing. Employing a number of things
>> can be helpful to better markup.
>
>
> I did not say that.
> Of course I agree on that it is good to know what you are doing.
> But forgetting to close a tag has not much to do with not to know that.
> Validators are supposed to help.


Ok, now you misunderstand. Validators are a good tool, your problem was
*not* the missing optional tags but markup like this:

<a name="italienskan-ligan"</a>

Why did Validator not find this error, I do not know. Take it up with
the the programmers of the validator. However, the validator is just a
program, a tool, and can help you find error. Code can technically
validate and not be good design, also it is possible to throw certain
combinations of junk at it and cause the program to fail.

When your say "But forgetting to close a tag has not much to do with not
to know that. Validators are supposed to help."

Validators help, yes but not the only thing. Missing the option closing
tags is not an error but can contribute to confusion on your part,
interfering with my other point that "good markup is not obtained by
just running though a validator". Inconstantly using option ending tags
could be inferred as limited understanding or just sloppiness. In either
case it makes code very hard to debug manually and manual debut is
another part of making good markup, i.e., finding the error yourself.
That is why I suggested 'pretty-ing up' your markup, not for 'artistic
reasons but to make it easier to find your errors.

>
> 'Prettier' markup as I mentioned can
>> have a functional purpose of making it easier to identify mistakes and
>> easier to maintain a document as you make changes over time.
>>
>> It is not 'this *or* that', as your attitude seems to be to do one thing
>> at the exclusion of another, but rather a 'this *and* that' can be the
>> best approach.
>
> Again, you seem to misunderstand me.
> See above.
>
> I'd advise continuing to use the validator, *and* also
>> get the Web Developers Bar for Firefox with tools that *would* help you
>> analyze your markup, *and* use more than one browser for development,
>> *and* be more receptive to advice from folks who know what they are
>> doing, *and* since you appear to value education maybe take a course in
>> web design?
>
> You are "good" to say that other people do not follow
> "advices". Sorry, I do not like your attitude.
> As I tried to point out earlier, I sometimes follow it and other times I do
> not, just because
> I think.
> "Cogito ergo sum" I think it over what other say and I try and decide on my
> own what I want to do.
> As to a course in web design, I am not likely to follow one at least in a
> short time.
> I have other priorities (for example I am learning Chinese on my own among
> many things)
> As to concrete questions,
> I have now one
> Would you rather have
> a <div class="section" id="name of the file or some name which reminds of
> the content of the page">
> and then
> <div class="subsection" id="head">?
> I am not so sure about that.
> On the one hand I think that a section should have a heading (h1),
> on the other hand, it the section is a container for the whole page,
> the "head" should be a subsection!
>

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I suggested that you use
an elements 'id' for your anchor within a page instead of empty named
'A' elements <a name="SomeAnchor"></a> since your page had errors like
this one:

<a name="italienskan-ligan"</a>

where if could have been written

<p id="italienskan-ligan">The text for the block...

or

<h2 id="italienskan-ligan">Your Heading Text</h2>


Personally I like to name CCS class that describe the function of styled
element, e.g., class="pictureGallery", class="itemDesc", or class="currency"

"section" seems to generic, "articleBody" or "travelPicture"... but to
each his own...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Back to original message]