Does anyone pay attention to standards?

[Isaac Grover]

Hi everyone,

Just out of curiosity I recently pointed one of my hand-typed pages at the W3
Validator, and my hand-typed code was just ripped to shreds. Then I pointed
some major sites (microsoft.com, cnn.com, etc.) at the W3 Validator; to my
surprise none of them passed.

Doesn't anyone care anymore, or are the standards more-or-less looked at as
guidlines for web design?

Isaac

Are you losing $14,200.00 per year without your knowledge?
http://bigmoneyandfreetime.web1000.com

[Karl Groves]

"Whitecrest " <wh********@whi tecrestziopzap. com> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@news.charter. net...

In article <c6**********@n gspool-d02.news.aol.co m>,
ka**@NOSPAMkarl core.com says...

Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.

Again, as usual, your moronic drivel revolves around "either-or"
propositions.
Either it is standards compliant OR it breaks in browsers?
How about standards compliant AND not breaking in browsers? Nah, that'd be too much for your little brain to absorb.

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.

Again, here you go continuing your false dilemma by implying that standards
compliance limits the presentation.
Perhaps you're just not creative enough and knowledgeable enough to do
either properly?

-Karl

[Eric Jarvis]

Whitecrest wh********@whit ecrestziopzap.c om wrote:

In article <c6**********@n gspool-d02.news.aol.co m>,
ka**@NOSPAMkarl core.com says...

Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.

Again, as usual, your moronic drivel revolves around "either-or"
propositions.
Either it is standards compliant OR it breaks in browsers?
How about standards compliant AND not breaking in browsers? Nah, that'd be
too much for your little brain to absorb.

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.

nonsense...work ing to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium

attempting to impose techniques and processes from one medium on another
medium is not only limiting what you can do, it's likely to lead to
inferior results

you don't control the end result of a web design...so you've got to
operate in terms of the standards as the first stage of design...it's the
only way you can get a reasonable level of predictability that will be in
any way future proof...that doesn't mean not tweaking to deal with browser
bugs...but it's just plain dumb to start by dealing with current browser
bugs as the first stage of the process...you can't expect a print/games/TV
design process to work in a different medium

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

[Whitecrest]

In article <c6************ @ID-207379.news.uni-berlin.de>, s7an10
@netscape.net says...

Without work arounds? Nope.

What about:
<object data="yourfile. swf" type="applicati on/x-shockwave-flash"
width="320" height="240">
<param name="movie" value="yourfile .swf">
Nah, no Flash.
</object>

See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/ as to why that
doesn't work.

Now they offer a solution, but if you are a user of flash not a builder,
then the solution doesn't work. Also you have to have a container flash
object and all this other horse shit.

The embed tag is easy, and it works all the time with less code. It
just doesn't follow the standards. But all the browsers handle it
correctly.

Gee hard decision here. less work, works on everyone's machine, and no
container flash. So I am not standards compliant, it works everywhere.

And yea, I will have to go back and re-code someday. But since some of
you still code for nn4, I am not really worried about that. Not to
mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
I have bigger problems that just standards.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

In article <c6**********@n gspool-d02.news.aol.co m>,
ka**@NOSPAMkarl core.com says...

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.

Again, here you go continuing your false dilemma by implying that standards
compliance limits the presentation.

It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use. (I think we agree on that point.)

Now, if CSS offers (say) 100 presentation features (yes there are more
but this if to keep the math easy for you), but I can not use 30 of them
because of browser compliance, I loose the presentation features these
offered? (I can't use them because they would display differently on
different browsers.)

So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Whitecrest]

In article <MP************ ************@ne ws.individual.n et>,
we*@ericjarvis. co.uk says...

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.

nonsense...work ing to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium

Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.
Some think that is true, others think you need to pay attention you the
people that actually use your site and see what they want.

You do realize that some people actually seek out flash sites, and multi
media presentations and games, and movies on the web right? And at the
same time, others seek out sites they can see on the phone browser. The
two types of sites can live in perfect harmony you know.

Following standards, and trying to make your site viewable to everyone
in the world, makes the first type of site impossible to build.

If you disagree, then show me any fortune 500 site the site that is
standards compliant.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

[Eric Jarvis]

Whitecrest wh********@whit ecrestziopzap.c om wrote:

In article <c6**********@n gspool-d02.news.aol.co m>,
ka**@NOSPAMkarl core.com says...

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that. Again, here you go continuing your false dilemma by implying that standards
compliance limits the presentation.

It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use. (I think we agree on that point.)

yes and no...you see nobody sane would want the site to look the same on
different browsers...not only is it a pointless goal it is also nigh on
impossible
Now, if CSS offers (say) 100 presentation features (yes there are more
but this if to keep the math easy for you), but I can not use 30 of them
because of browser compliance, I loose the presentation features these
offered? (I can't use them because they would display differently on
different browsers.)

So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.

wrong

because you are insisting that "working" equates to "looks identical"
something I don't believe that you can justify...certa inly when I've asked
people who make that claim to justify it in the past the responses have
been incoherent rambling, abuse or no response at all

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

[Eric Jarvis]

Whitecrest wh********@whit ecrestziopzap.c om wrote:

In article <MP************ ************@ne ws.individual.n et>,
we*@ericjarvis. co.uk says...

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that. nonsense...work ing to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium

Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.
Some think that is true, others think you need to pay attention you the
people that actually use your site and see what they want.

You do realize that some people actually seek out flash sites, and multi
media presentations and games, and movies on the web right? And at the
same time, others seek out sites they can see on the phone browser. The
two types of sites can live in perfect harmony you know.

Following standards, and trying to make your site viewable to everyone
in the world, makes the first type of site impossible to build.

no it doesn't...and I've used Flash, video clips, and sound (not games as
yet, though I don't rule it out)...there are good ways to use all of
them...all it takes is a basic understanding of the medium...someth ing you
don't seem yet to have gained
If you disagree, then show me any fortune 500 site the site that is
standards compliant.

I don't see how that would prove a case...it seems to be on a par with the
rest of your "logic"

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof

[Brian]

Whitecrest wrote:

Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the same way
on different browsers.
True. In some situations, it is not rendered at all.
So if you want to have your site look the same on different browsers
Why on earth would you want that?
then you have to limit the CSS that you can use.
Only if you start with an absurd goal.
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all
browsers

Oops! non-sequitur. Just because it looks different to different uas
does not mean it does not work.

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Toby A Inkster]

Whitecrest wrote:

In article <pa************ *************** *@goddamn.co.uk >,
Us************* *****@deadspam. com says...

> Thanks for the other example. The Mozilla code needs the "embed" to
> properly handle Flash (activeX)

No you don't. <object> will load Flash just fine -- in IE 4+, Mozilla,
Netscape 6+ and Opera 5+ (maybe 4+?).

Without work arounds? Nope.

<object data="myfile.sw f" height="100" width="140"></object>

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

[Toby A Inkster]

Whitecrest wrote:

In article <pa************ *************** @goddamn.co.uk> ,
Us************* *****@deadspam. com says...

So you are suggesting that it's impossible to code a three column layout
that works in IE and validates?

Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.

Where did I suggest that you disregard what browsers do?

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132