473,728 Members | 1,707 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Opinion: Do web standards matter?

Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.

Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".

So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?

P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ]

http://www.subuse.net : text-only, low bandwidth, anonymous web forums
Jul 23 '05
250 10424

David Ross schrieb:

Each newsgroup seems to have its own, distinct conventions for
replying.

No.

And when I entered Usenet in 1992, I got the same advice as you did. Back
then, there was even a book as a free .ps file for the university
freshmen, in order to explain newsgroup usage. The good thing has been,
that most of them were able to correct their errors in a few weeks.
Hans-Joachim

--Du hast aber doch nicht ernsthaft damit gerechnet, daß der IÄ viel CSS
jenseits von "color" und "font-size" unterstützt, oder?


Wiejetz ... der IE5.x kann schon "color"? Wolfgang Krietsch
Jul 23 '05 #41
JRS: In article <42************ ***@nowhere.not >, dated Sun, 27 Mar 2005
10:57:55, seen in news:comp.infos ystems.www.authoring.html, David Ross
<no****@nowhere .not> posted :
I can't possibly remember all the rules for each
of the 21 newsgroups where I frequently participate.

Then write them down, and refer to them when posting.

Readers are more important than authors; they need to be at least as
numerous, since otherwise the authors are superfluous.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Jul 23 '05 #42
me
"Sugapablo" <ru**@REMOVEsug apablo.com> wrote in message
news:pa******** *************** *****@REMOVEsug apablo.com...
Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.

Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".

So if all these places, with their teams of web developers don't seem to
care, should the rest of us small time web devs concern ourselves with
standards? I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?

P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
[

]

I suspect you had some idea of the response you'd get before you asked this
question (considering the audience) but I see no harm in seeking validation
from those who share a similar point of view.

I have no objection to standards provided that they do not make unusable
anything that existed before the standard. I see no obstacle to providing
backward comparability for legacy code in the current standard (someone
please correct me if I'm wrong).

As an aside I do not validate my code. I might implement validation if I
perceived that there was sufficient benefit for me to warrant doing so.

Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's
freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.
Signed,
me
Jul 24 '05 #43
me wrote:

Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's
freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.


It's all about you?

Whether you want to admit it or not, it's really all about your
visitors. Without them, the web serves no purpose.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 24 '05 #44

"me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote in message
news:11******** *****@corp.supe rnews.com...
"Sugapablo" <ru**@REMOVEsug apablo.com> wrote in message
news:pa******** *************** *****@REMOVEsug apablo.com...
Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I
decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C
Markup Validator.
<snip>
I suspect you had some idea of the response you'd get before you asked
this
question (considering the audience) but I see no harm in seeking
validation
from those who share a similar point of view.

I have no objection to standards provided that they do not make unusable
anything that existed before the standard. I see no obstacle to providing
backward comparability for legacy code in the current standard (someone
please correct me if I'm wrong).

As an aside I do not validate my code. I might implement validation if I
perceived that there was sufficient benefit for me to warrant doing so.

Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's
freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.
Signed,
me


I tend to agree. I see the need for some very basic standards for validation
(esp. alt. tags), but the dogmatic attitudes present in newsgroups & on some
developers sites re validation and/or tables versus CSS makes it sound
almost cult-like:)

Carla
Jul 24 '05 #45
me
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a******** *****@individua l.net...
me wrote:

Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then the web serves no purpose.


It's all about you?

Whether you want to admit it or not, it's really all about your
visitors. Without them, the web serves no purpose.


What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Which comes first, a book or it's
readers? Which comes first, the website or the visitors?
Signed,
me
Jul 24 '05 #46
Once upon a time *me* wrote:

Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's
freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.


In what way do following standards prevent your freedom of expression?
So far I have not experience that. Of cause I have sometimes find
other ways to do what I want to do, if I want a page to be valid. But
there is always that other (valid) way to do it.

--
/Arne

Proud User of Mozilla Suite. Get your free copy here:
*English* http://www.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/
*Svenska* http://www.mozilla.se/mozilla.shtml
Jul 24 '05 #47
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:53:48 -0600, me wrote:
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a******** *****@individua l.net...
me wrote:

Philosophically speaking I oppose anything that impedes a website author's freedom of expression. If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then the web serves no purpose.

The web is (primarily) a visual medium. There is nothing that you can
express visually that cannot be done in such a way that it validates.
Doing so gives you (well, apparently not you, but it gives me) more
confidence that what I am "expressing " will work well, across current
and future browsers. Additionally, well-structured valid code has a
better chance of being translated reasonably well into non-visual media,
by an aural or Braille browser for example.

Validation is not the be-all and end-all. It is a useful tool. If your
page generates a few warnings that you fully understand the
ramifications of, then you can make a decision as to whether or not to
fix them. I recall reading an interview with the guy in charge of the
ESPN CSS redesign. He mentioned that there were a couple of "strict"
rules that they decided to break, because doing so gave them a large
benefit for most of their users, at a cost of a small penalty for a
small percentage. They weighed the two possibilities and decided that,
for the time being, it was better to be wrong. However, their decision
is a far cry from validation newbies deciding that "I don't really need
ALT attributes on any of my images."
It's all about you?

Whether you want to admit it or not, it's really all about your
visitors. Without them, the web serves no purpose.


What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Which comes first, a book or it's
readers? Which comes first, the website or the visitors?


Millions upon millions of web sites have come and gone. Many of them
failed because they didn't reach their intended audience. Of course,
the site must be there before visitors will show up, but if the visitors
don't materialize, then the site will wither and die. Looked at another
way, without visitors, it's not a web site, it's your own private
writings, which may as well be in a journal under your pillow.

--
Greg Schmidt gr***@trawna.co m
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
Jul 24 '05 #48
In article <11************ *@corp.supernew s.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.co m>
wrote:

[snip]

Wow. A seven-sentence response, two-thirds of which started with "I",
and six of which featured "I" as the primary subject. It really *must*
be all about you.
If authors cannot expresses themselves freely then
the web serves no purpose.


Folks who can't express themselves freely on the Web probably face
_much_ bigger challenges than the meanies at the W3C. Poverty,
illiteracy and tyranny suppress far more expression than some W3C
committee suggesting that tables not be used for layout, or declining to
include BLINK in some standard.

Get some perspective before spouting off BS about freedom of expression.

--
Joel.
Jul 24 '05 #49
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Greg Schmidt wrote:
The web is (primarily) a visual medium.


Oh no, the whole point of the web was to communicate content. We
already had plenty of visual-specific media, before the WWW was
invented; if one of those had been enough, TimBL would have had no
need to invent the WWW.

I don't dispute that most readers browse the web visually. But that
doesn't devalue the web into a visual-only medium.
Jul 24 '05 #50

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.