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 250  10186 
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:01:30 -0500, Sugapablo wrote: 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 follow the standards. It isn't a guarantee that the page(s) will work
everywhere, but I like to think it will. Maybe eventually, the browsers
will catch up and follow the standards too. In the mean time, some
manufacturers like to make their own standards, rather than following
those already in existance.
I also try to produce pages with minimal bloat. Keep the pages small, so
they load fast. It also makes them easier to edit later on.
Carolyn
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:08:11 -0500, Carolyn Marenger wrote: I also try to produce pages with minimal bloat. Keep the pages small, so
they load fast. It also makes them easier to edit later on.
Yeah, that's why I created http://www.subuse.net
Sometimes, I still get this romantic nostalgia for the days when I had a
2400 baud modem, telix, lynx, and nothing but command line. Silly, but...
Plus, today, with so many web phones and mobile devices, there aren't many
sites that work well with them, so I figured there's a need for minimalism
again.
--
[ 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
Sugapablo wrote: 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.
Good idea; good initiative.
Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".
That is sad news. This reflects on disregard for standards and moreover --
the inexperience of Web developers that these companies hire.
The movement of Web standards, much like that of Open Source, promotes a Web
that does not discriminate. This benefits everybody. So surely, Amazon,
Yahoo and M¥¢ro$o£t do not care enough. Mozilla have been discriminated
against for many years.
Want to know more about Web standards? Talk to the visually impaired, talk
to the PDA user, talk to the person in Africa who cannot afford a Window$
licence.
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?
Yes. One day many of us will have to 'clean up' our Web sites. You, however,
will not need to do so. Your present effort will be merited. 1 year ago
people designed their site to be compatible with IE. With so much going on
at the moment, can anyone look 5 years ahead?
I do, but sometimes I feel it's a wasted effort. What do yinz
think?
Once you practice a few validations, you learn from your mistakes and no
longer repeat them. Valid code becomes innate.
P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
Ouch. Probably the result of several people collaborating on content.
Roy
--
Roy Schestowitz http://schestowitz.com
Sugapablo wrote: 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.
You should note that it can be pretty hard to get such pages (I mean the
large portal like microsoft, yahoo...) valid. Such pages are dynamically
constructed with content from various sources. It is more of an
organizational monster act, to get the code corrected in databases in
various departments (finding and convincing the responsible people first),
hardcoded in custom software (perhaps developed by external contractors),
ad code delivered by affiliates...
mozilla.org is (compared to the others) a pretty small site and has just
been redesigned.
Even if the others started fixing their sites two year ago, I wouldn't
expect them to get the job done by now.
Microsoft for example just started this job (not sure, if it was
microsoft.com or another of their portal sites). They did pretty well, but
are still far from being perfect. IIRC some microsoft guy wrote about it -
and the obstacles in his blog.
--
Benjamin Niemann
Email: pink at odahoda dot de
WWW: http://www.odahoda.de/
I too try and follow the standards but I don't take much stock in the W3C
validator. Sometimes it will say stupid stuff like " a space is not allowed
here". I mean is that really gunna make a difference.
Also on things like CSS, IE does not support correctly half of it. Like
positioning is iffy. So I try my best and test my pages in IE and Mozilla or
Fire Bird. I'm more worried about my spelling!
--
Andrew C. Cooper www.wordforlife.com/cmhm
Check Out Our New Free Christian
Music Downloads At www.wordforlife.com
"Sugapablo" <ru**@REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVEsugapabl o.com... On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:08:11 -0500, Carolyn Marenger wrote:
I also try to produce pages with minimal bloat. Keep the pages small, so
they load fast. It also makes them easier to edit later on.
Yeah, that's why I created http://www.subuse.net
Sometimes, I still get this romantic nostalgia for the days when I had a
2400 baud modem, telix, lynx, and nothing but command line. Silly, but...
Plus, today, with so many web phones and mobile devices, there aren't many
sites that work well with them, so I figured there's a need for minimalism
again.
--
[
]
[ 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
In article <pa****************************@REMOVEsugapablo.co m>,
Sugapablo <ru**@REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote: 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?
Web standards are validation are a tool for you, for your own
development work -- today and into the future. But there's no value to
the visitor in trumpeting a web site as standards-compliant. No one
cares. But it definitely makes your job easier if you can check your
code against the W3C validators.
The Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo! sites are works in progress. They
contain a great deal of legacy content and code, and are being modified
and updated all the time, on the fly. It is not surpirsing that such
sites are not yet standards-compliant. Only sites that are rewritten
from the ground-up can be made easily using web standards.
If web standards help you as a web developer, then use them, and forget
what the huge portals are doing.
--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword" http://JimRoyal.com
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:01:30 -0500, Sugapablo
<ru**@REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote: 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".
Why, I'm *shocked* that major corporations aren't developing to
standards! ;-)
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.
Think of it as "future-proofing" your markup. You won't have to go
back and fix your sites that are broken in IE 8.2 or Fire&animal; 3.5.
What do yinz think?
I think you must be from Pittsburgh.
Nick
--
Nick Theodorakis ni**************@hotmail.com
contact form: http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Sugapablo wrote: 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?
I took a look at the nutrition info for some of the most popular eateries in
the US: McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell. Turns
out they're terrible for you! Loaded down with fat, sugar, and sodium.
So, if these places don't seem to care, why should the rest of us concern
ourselves with nutrition when we're cooking our own meals?
sherm--
--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:01:30 -0500, Sugapablo <ru**@REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote: 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?
Violating my own standards here (read all responses already made, before
responding myself, as to avoid duplication of answers):
I get my motivation to code according to standards from within. I don't really
care what others do. _I_ mind, because:
- I like to create with a certain quality, and I think working according to
standards adds quality to what I create;
- I experience how easy it is to maintain quality code;
- I experience how easy it is to find flaws and mistakes with validating my
pages every now and again, when I made some major changes; flaws and mistakes
that can influence the rendering of my pages in a way that I think is
undesirable;
- I experience expanding my knowledge (train as I 'fight') if I challange myself
to stay within standards.
But, I like to be a bit naughty sometimes, so I created my own DTD that included
the <nobr> for example. So 'web standards' is really what you make of them in
the end, how else does evolution get a change ;-)
Now, I'll read what others had to say on this.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
accooper wrote: I too try and follow the standards but I don't take much stock in the
W3C validator. Sometimes it will say stupid stuff like " a space is not
allowed here". I mean is that really gunna make a difference.
The W3C validator doesn't ask itself "is this mistake going to make a
difference?" It just asks "is this valid?" And when it answers, it's
rarely incorrect.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Toby Inkster wrote: accooper wrote:
I too try and follow the standards but I don't take much stock in the
W3C validator. Sometimes it will say stupid stuff like " a space is not
allowed here". I mean is that really gunna make a difference.
The W3C validator doesn't ask itself "is this mistake going to make a
difference?" It just asks "is this valid?" And when it answers, it's
rarely incorrect.
Actually it answers (should answer) "it /is/ correct", as defined by the
standards in question. At present this means that it will "rarely be
rendered incorrectly by browsers". This implies that some browsers are
broken, not the validators which rely on formal standards.
Roy
--
Roy Schestowitz http://schestowitz.com
in alt.html, Roy Schestowitz wrote: Toby Inkster wrote:
accooper wrote:
I too try and follow the standards but I don't take much stock in the
W3C validator. Sometimes it will say stupid stuff like " a space is not
allowed here". I mean is that really gunna make a difference.
The W3C validator doesn't ask itself "is this mistake going to make a
difference?" It just asks "is this valid?" And when it answers, it's
rarely incorrect.
Actually it answers (should answer) "it /is/ correct",
No, being correct is irrelevant. Validator chacks if it is valid, nothing
more, nothing less. Valid has technical meaning here that differs from
correct.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
At present this means that it will "rarely be
rendered incorrectly by browsers".
Again, that is not true. It is extreamily easy to make valid document
that is always rendered wrong.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Benjamin Niemann wrote:
You should note that it can be pretty hard to get such pages (I mean the
large portal like microsoft, yahoo...) valid. Such pages are dynamically
constructed with content from various sources. [...]
Not so. Large sites use a Content Management System of some sort. Once
the CMS is set up to generate valid code, having a standards-compliant
site is automatic.
Really it's some combination of hubris, sloth, poor education and
ignorant management.
--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Benjamin Niemann wrote: You should note that it can be pretty hard to get such
pages (I mean the large portal like microsoft, yahoo...)
valid. Such pages are dynamically constructed with
content from various sources. It is more of an
organizational monster act, to get the code corrected in
databases in various departments (finding and convincing
the responsible people first), hardcoded in custom
software (perhaps developed by external contractors), ad
code delivered by affiliates...
I have to disagree on that one. Generated pages are
almost as easy to get valid as static ones. If these
places cared about standards they'd be able to to it very
quickly. (I'm not saying that they could necessarily get
rid of the complex tables. But they could easily get
their pages to *validate*.)
--
mbstevens http://www.mbstevens.com
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Sugapablo
<ru**@REMOVEsugapablo.com> writing in
news:pa****************************@REMOVEsugapabl o.com: Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".
Opera is valid XHTML
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?
I write valid markup for a few reasons:
1. It's easier for me to write to standards.
2. It's easier to find bugs. I do a lot of server side coding, and I
find it's easier to find a server side bug if I know the markup is valid
first. 3. Documents are more consistent across browsers and platforms.
4. Search engines seem to like valid markup better, and they seem to like
semantic markup even more. 5. I'm a control freak. I like everything to
be "just so".
--
Adrienne Boswell http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
All I know is that you have to take the validators with a grain of salt or
you can be chasing rabbits more than building pages.
--
Andrew C. Cooper www.wordforlife.com/cmhm
Check Out Our New Free Christian
Music Downloads At www.wordforlife.com
"Roy Schestowitz" <ne********@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:d2***********@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk... Toby Inkster wrote:
accooper wrote:
I too try and follow the standards but I don't take much stock in the
W3C validator. Sometimes it will say stupid stuff like " a space is not
allowed here". I mean is that really gunna make a difference.
The W3C validator doesn't ask itself "is this mistake going to make a
difference?" It just asks "is this valid?" And when it answers, it's
rarely incorrect.
Actually it answers (should answer) "it /is/ correct", as defined by the
standards in question. At present this means that it will "rarely be
rendered incorrectly by browsers". This implies that some browsers are
broken, not the validators which rely on formal standards.
Roy
--
Roy Schestowitz
http://schestowitz.com
Benjamin Niemann wrote: You should note that it can be pretty hard to get such pages (I mean
the large portal like microsoft, yahoo...) valid. Such pages are
dynamically constructed with content from various sources. It is more of an
organizational monster act, to get the code corrected in databases in
various departments (finding and convincing the responsible people
first), hardcoded in custom software (perhaps developed by external
contractors), ad code delivered by affiliates...
But look at Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org/ ) for a
counterexample. That site lets any idiot edit it, and the editing is
done in a tag-soup mishmash of plain text, proprietary wiki markup, and
a subset of HTML... but the end result, as output to the browser, is
completely valid XHTML; at least, every Wikipedia page I've ever tried
in the validator has passed.
--
Dan
If my Web page complies with the W3C specifications, any problem
you have with viewing it as I intended is the fault of your
browser. It's not my fault, and I won't do anything about it.
If your page does not comply with the specifications and guidelines
— or worse uses proprietary capabilities found in only one
company's browser — any problem that I have with viewing it as you
intended may easily be the fault of your Web page. You need to fix
your page before pointing an accusing finger at my browser. If you
don't care, then I don't choose to view your page.
For details, see
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html>.
--
David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>
I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:21:14 -0800, David Ross <no****@nowhere.not> wrote: If you
don't care, then I don't choose to view your page.
Maybe you have learned something on authoring markup and styles for pages. Now
it is about time to learn on replying in this newsgroup:
- quote the part you reply to;
- attribute the quote.
Just to show you care about the realm you've entered. If you don't care, then I
don't choose to read your postings.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
in alt.html, David Ross wrote: If my Web page complies with the W3C specifications, any problem
you have with viewing it as I intended is the fault of your
browser. It's not my fault, and I won't do anything about it.
That would be stupid attitude, if true.
No browser has or is likely to ever support HTML4. I think that CSS21 and
XHTML2 are the point when we can think there is wide enough browser
support... (and it will be 5 years, at least...)
In reality, you never use code that you know will break on all browsers,
even if it is entirely correct. That would be just plain dumm (unless
only idea is to demostrate something)
If your page does not comply with the specifications and guidelines
— or worse uses proprietary capabilities found in only one
company's browser — any problem that I have with viewing it as you
intended may easily be the fault of your Web page.
That makes much more sence.
You need to fix your page before pointing an accusing finger at my browser.
Exactly.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Benjamin Niemann wrote:
You should note that it can be pretty hard to get such pages (I mean the
large portal like microsoft, yahoo...) valid. Such pages are dynamically
constructed with content from various sources. It is more of an
organizational monster act, to get the code corrected in databases in
various departments (finding and convincing the responsible people first),
hardcoded in custom software (perhaps developed by external contractors),
ad code delivered by affiliates...
It may not be as hard as you think. Take a look at wired.com. That's a
fairly large site.
If you run their home page through the validator, it may seem like there
are a lot of errors, but almost all of them are due to using "&" in URLs
rather than the & entity reference. If they fixed this one thing,
there would only be a couple errors on the page. Not bad, methinks.
Something you may not be considering is that large organizations are
going to have change control systems that are intended to prevent crap
from getting into their production environment. Code quality standards
belong in that process. I don't believe it's a matter of an organization
"convincing" employees to do things the right way. If it's a policy,
there's not much to argue about. If there's no policy, you get chaos.
The quality of the output is only as good as the process and input
controls. Some places are better at it than others, same as anything
else. But just because some big boys aren't so good at it doesn't mean
it can't be done.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Sugapablo wrote: 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?
I sometimes wonder if it's worth it too. I try to stick to the
recommendations and do none of the stuff that causes me to leave so many
sites today. I also teach HTML and I use the w3c validator as part of
my grading. I do tell me students that I am teaching them the "correct"
way and expect all of their pages to validate. Once they are done with
the class however, they are free to follow the recommendation they want
to (loose, strict, whatever). I've seen many of my students finish the
class and go right back to table layout and either no doctype or a loose
doctype.
Because the browser manufacturers allow the crap code to work, it's a
losing battle. Personnally, though, I'll keep putting out the best
markup that I possibly can.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:29:16 -0700, Uncle Pirate <st**@SureCann.com> wrote: I also teach HTML and I use the w3c validator as part of my grading. I do
tell me students that I am teaching them the "correct" way and expect all of
their pages to validate. Once they are done with the class however, they are
free to follow the recommendation they want to (loose, strict, whatever).
I've seen many of my students finish the class and go right back to table
layout and either no doctype or a loose doctype.
Hmmm. Makes me wounder. What is the reason you give your students? Not just so
they understand the knowledge you provide, but the actual insight, wisdom,
whatever, that takes them beyond the simple understanding level. What is it you
strive to accomplish with your students?
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
kchayka wrote: Benjamin Niemann wrote:
You should note that it can be pretty hard to get such pages (I mean the
large portal like microsoft, yahoo...) valid. Such pages are dynamically
constructed with content from various sources. It is more of an
organizational monster act, to get the code corrected in databases in
various departments (finding and convincing the responsible people first),
hardcoded in custom software (perhaps developed by external contractors),
ad code delivered by affiliates...
It may not be as hard as you think. Take a look at wired.com. That's a
fairly large site.
Correct. When a company is paying "professional" web developers to work
on their website, there is no excuse for the garbage output.
If you run their home page through the validator, it may seem like there
are a lot of errors, but almost all of them are due to using "&" in URLs
rather than the & entity reference. If they fixed this one thing,
there would only be a couple errors on the page. Not bad, methinks.
Something you may not be considering is that large organizations are
going to have change control systems that are intended to prevent crap
from getting into their production environment. Code quality standards
belong in that process. I don't believe it's a matter of an organization
"convincing" employees to do things the right way. If it's a policy,
there's not much to argue about. If there's no policy, you get chaos.
Some environments are easier to enforce policy than others. Although
the code genererated by Netscape/Mozilla Composer is generally not good,
the ease of use for non-technical people assigned to work on their area
pages is what I train many of the employees at the college where I am
the webmaster. I do all the pages that I take care of with HTML 4.01
strict, css 2.1, and validate those pages. I tell the users, in
workshops I give that I don't ever want to have to work on the pages
they are doing with Composer because of what it outputs, but the pages
display OK, and they are not web developers.
On our new design (upcoming), I'm planning on implementing some SSI and
a different (not sure what yet) method so those non-technical people can
output better code easier. I'm looking at different tools now for them
to use. I cannot expect them to use a text editor as I do without some
more extensive training.
The quality of the output is only as good as the process and input
controls. Some places are better at it than others, same as anything
else. But just because some big boys aren't so good at it doesn't mean
it can't be done.
Exactly. I would really prefer to implement a method where the
secretaries and such give me the info and I do the pages. Lack of time
on my part, prevents that however so I'm also looking into php (I
already do a lot of CGI stuff with Perl). I'm considering a basic
dynamic method where these people only have to deal with content, not
the HTML.
Good thread. Interesting opinions.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Barbara de Zoete wrote: On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:29:16 -0700, Uncle Pirate <st**@SureCann.com> wrote:
I also teach HTML and I use the w3c validator as part of my grading.
I do tell me students that I am teaching them the "correct" way and
expect all of their pages to validate. Once they are done with the
class however, they are free to follow the recommendation they want
to (loose, strict, whatever). I've seen many of my students finish
the class and go right back to table layout and either no doctype or
a loose doctype.
Hmmm. Makes me wounder. What is the reason you give your students? Not
just so they understand the knowledge you provide, but the actual
insight, wisdom, whatever, that takes them beyond the simple
understanding level. What is it you strive to accomplish with your
students?
I tell my students that "Transitional" means just that. Although things
may "work" with no doctype or using the transitional method, it is
outdated. The time of transition from a 1998 recommendation is long
past; new pages *should* meet the recommendations. I give them
information about quirks mode, how browsers render differently
with/without various doctypes. I show them how much simpler pages are
to work on eliminating the table layout methods. I try to teach the
"modern correct" methods of web development. But I can only "make" them
do it while they are taking my class and being graded on their
assignments. Your question makes me wonder if I shouldn't gather some
statistics to review. Your question just might make a good course
assessment project. Thanks.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:07:05 -0700, Uncle Pirate <st**@SureCann.com> wrote: Barbara de Zoete wrote: On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:29:16 -0700, Uncle Pirate <st**@SureCann.com> wrote:
I also teach HTML and I use the w3c validator as part of my grading. I do
tell me students that I am teaching them the "correct" way and expect all
of their pages to validate. Once they are done with the class however,
they are free to follow the recommendation they want to (loose, strict,
whatever). I've seen many of my students finish the class and go right
back to table layout and either no doctype or a loose doctype.
Hmmm. Makes me wounder. What is the reason you give your students? Not just
so they understand the knowledge you provide, but the actual insight,
wisdom, whatever, that takes them beyond the simple understanding level.
What is it you strive to accomplish with your students?
I tell my students that "Transitional" means just that. Although things may
"work" with no doctype or using the transitional method, it is outdated. The
time of transition from a 1998 recommendation is long past; new pages *should*
meet the recommendations. I give them information about quirks mode, how
browsers render differently with/without various doctypes. I show them how
much simpler pages are to work on eliminating the table layout methods. I try
to teach the "modern correct" methods of web development. But I can only
"make" them do it while they are taking my class and being graded on their
assignments. Your question makes me wonder if I shouldn't gather some
statistics to review. Your question just might make a good course assessment
project. Thanks.
What I miss in your explanation to me, is the passion. The reasoning about
Transitional is what they can read or figger out themselves. The passion tells
them about reaching all people on earth that are somehow connected to the
internet. No matter what machine, what browser, what ever means, if someone is
connected, you can reach them.
I once stood on a line in Europe, a path that was several thousands of
kilometers long, knowing that with me, in a few hours before me and after me,
over one hundred and fifty milion people stood on that same line. It was the
path that plotted the course of the shadow on earth of a full sun eclips, as it
occured. I rarely ever felt so bonded with people before or after, but sometimes
I get that feeling if a visitor of my site responds out of the blue to my
publishings.
That. That is why I code to standards. I want everybody to be able to connect to
me. If you are serious about reaching out, your code shows it.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:56:30 -0700, Uncle Pirate wrote: I would really prefer to implement a method where the secretaries and
such give me the info and I do the pages. Lack of time on my part,
prevents that however so I'm also looking into php (I already do a lot
of CGI stuff with Perl). I'm considering a basic dynamic method where
these people only have to deal with content, not the HTML.
That's what a CMS (Content Management System) is for. You write the web
code, and all they do is fill in the content into web forms (etc.) and no
technical knowledge is needed on their part beyond just using the website.
I deal with CMSs all the time. Once you have it layed out, they simply
spit out all kinds of good code.
--
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ]
Dan wrote: at least, every Wikipedia page I've ever tried
in the validator has passed.
How long has that been the case?
When I developed the mod_annot framework[1] for accepting input
(including markup) from users and guaranteeing valid pages,
I thought it was a first. Are you saying wikipedia's been doing
it for years?
[1] see http://www.apachetutor.org/apps/annot
--
Nick Kew
Jim Moe wrote: Benjamin Niemann wrote:
You should note that it can be pretty hard to get such pages (I mean the
large portal like microsoft, yahoo...) valid. Such pages are dynamically
constructed with content from various sources. [...]
Not so. Large sites use a Content Management System of some sort. Once
the CMS is set up to generate valid code, having a standards-compliant
site is automatic.
But what, if the WCMS allows the author to enter tagsoup that is directly
stored in the DB without validation. Many WCM systems do and most of them
did a few years ago. You'd still have to plow through thousands of
documents and correct them.
Really it's some combination of hubris, sloth, poor education and
ignorant management.
The vast amount of existing content makes it a great challange for these
sites. And much of this content and the software behind it (their probably
homegrown WCM system) originates from a time when standards unfortunatly
did no matter...
I totally agree that it would indeed be a very good signal, if they did
undertake this challange (especially MS that co-authored the web standards
they are violating or neglecting).
But I think it is only natural that such giant sites have a much higher
inertia and it would be rather surprising, if they reached the goal before
the bulk of small sites do.
If I would like to know, if these big players care about web standards, I
would look at their newer pages. E.g. what about the new MSN search? It
just recently went public. THAT would be a shame, if they'd still use
tagsoup for these sites. (In fact, it looks pretty good. XHTML 1.0 strict
with just a few glitches).
--
Benjamin Niemann
Email: pink at odahoda dot de
WWW: http://www.odahoda.de/
Barbara de Zoete wrote: What I miss in your explanation to me, is the passion. The reasoning
about Transitional is what they can read or figger out themselves. The
passion tells them about reaching all people on earth that are somehow
connected to the internet. No matter what machine, what browser, what
ever means, if someone is connected, you can reach them.
Very difficult to get the passion across in a text format like this.
And when I teach on-line, as I often do, it is difficult to get that
across as well, this fall will be in the classroom and the students will
experience my passion. I take pride in doing the best job I can do, no
matter what that job may be.
Far from perfect, my pride (soon to get a facelift, I hope) is http://alamo.nmsu.edu/, much of my 40 hour a week job. I use the
difference between editing one of the older table layout pages with the
newer 4.01 strict with CSS pages as an example of ease of updating.
I am really looking forward to the promised development of a new layout.
Others, better at design will come up with the layout/design, while
I'll be involved telling them what is practical/feasible and will
eventually implement the facelift. Exciting times.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Sugapablo wrote:
That's what a CMS (Content Management System) is for. You write the web
code, and all they do is fill in the content into web forms (etc.) and no
technical knowledge is needed on their part beyond just using the website.
I deal with CMSs all the time. Once you have it layed out, they simply
spit out all kinds of good code.
Problem is expense of a good one. I'll be probably piecing it together
a little at a time as I've been doing for years. Although not the best
coder, I've converted several things into dynamic pages over the years
at NMSU-A. Although somewhat buggy (error_log entries all the time), http://alamo.nmsu.edu/cgi-bin/directory.pl works well for what it was
designed for and is much easier to maintain than editing several web
pages containing that information as I used to. And, I'm not afraid to
find code so that I don't have to reinvent ... Kinda why I'm looking
into php right now. Lots of stuff written out there that I don't quite
understand yet.
--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
accooper wrote: I too try and follow the standards but I don't take much stock in the W3C
validator. Sometimes it will say stupid stuff like " a space is not allowed
here".
It is the validator's job to report *all* syntax errors, not to decide
"Oh, I think this is a minor error, I won't bother the author by
mentioning it this time".
I mean is that really gunna make a difference.
It may not make a difference to you, as someone reading the source code;
but, to an SGML parser, a space (or any other character) where one is
not expected is a syntax error, from which a parser would have to employ
possibly undefined error handling technniques to recover. In the case
of XML, such errors will be fatal, so yes, it really does make a difference.
--
Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Sugapablo wrote: Out of microsoft.com, google.com, amazon.com, yahoo.com, aol.com, and
mozilla.org, only Mozilla's site came back "Valid HTML".
At least the microsoft.com home page is getting very close (only 3
errors: 1 missing alt attr, proprietary nowrap attribute and using
checked="true" instead of checked="checked").
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?
This sounds like an attempt to justify the presence of errors simply
because they're made by many other organisations, whereas this really
should be a case of learning from other's mistakes, so you don't make
them yourself.
Many people attempt to ignore standards, conformance and validation by
saying that it doesn't matter and/or it doesn't affect anything.
However, the simple fact is that there is little chance we will ever see
a main-stream browser that conforms 100% to HTML 4 simply because doing
so would "break" many more existing (broken) pages than it would
benefit. i.e. Because there are so many poorly coded web pages out there
that *don't* conform to the standards, we will never see a main-stream
browser that does; thus non-conformance has had, and *does have*, a very
detrimental effect.
The SHORTTAG NET features of SGML are one example I can think of, which
will not be implemented for this reason, at least not in Mozilla any
time soon [1].
P.S. Slashdot returned a 403 Forbidden to the validator but when I saved
the homepage locally, it failed too.
That's very strange, at first I thought that might be related to bug
1069 [2] (some hosts reject UAs with libwww-perl in their User-Agent
string), although that didn't work in this case, so slashdot must be
rejecting based on some other factor. However, I was able to validate
with the latest development version of the validator which reported
invalid HTML 3.2 with 130 errors.
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94284
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1069
--
Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Lachlan Hunt wrote: That's very strange, at first I thought that might be related to bug
1069 [2] (some hosts reject UAs with libwww-perl in their User-Agent
string), although that didn't work in this case, so slashdot must be
rejecting based on some other factor.
Slashdot blocks the W3C validator by IP address. They've been doing it for
quite some time. (Embarrassed about poor quality code.)
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Toby Inkster wrote: Lachlan Hunt wrote:
That's very strange, at first I thought that might be related to
bug 1069 [2] (some hosts reject UAs with libwww-perl in their
User-Agent string), although that didn't work in this case, so
slashdot must be rejecting based on some other factor.
Slashdot blocks the W3C validator by IP address. They've been doing
it for quite some time. (Embarrassed about poor quality code.)
Heh, they forgot this one. <g>
<URL:http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fslashdot.org%2F&warn ings=yes>
"The maximum number of errors was reached. Further errors in the
document have not been reported."
In all fairness to Slashdot, the "maximum number of errors" was 50.
--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Barbara de Zoete wrote [in part]:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:21:14 -0800, David Ross <no****@nowhere.not> wrote:
If you
don't care, then I don't choose to view your page.
Maybe you have learned something on authoring markup and styles for pages. Now
it is about time to learn on replying in this newsgroup:
- quote the part you reply to;
- attribute the quote.
Just to show you care about the realm you've entered. If you don't care, then I
don't choose to read your postings.
Each newsgroup seems to have its own, distinct conventions for
replying. Some want top-posting of replies; others want
bottom-posting. Some want complete quoting of the entire thread
when replying; others want only the relevant portion of the
previous message. I can't possibly remember all the rules for each
of the 21 newsgroups where I frequently participate. (For Web
standards, however, there is only one HTML 4.01 specification and
one one CSS1 specification; and I still have to read the
specifications for details.)
In this case, I was replying to the Subject, which indeed did
appear as part of my reply.
--
David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>
I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html, David Ross wrote: Each newsgroup seems to have its own, distinct conventions for
replying. Some want top-posting of replies; others want
bottom-posting.
Yet to find out group that prefers top posting or insensible quoting.
Some groups that accept it (only gets noted on bottom of message)
I subscribe and participate on about 60 groups in 3 languages, of which
less than half technical stuff, and all follow same guidelines for
posting. Not all are as strict on posting style as this group, but all
prefer same style. (and some are stricter.)
Usually, it has much to do with volume of group. This is not excactly
quiet group, and many people also follow other ciwa* groups...
Some want complete quoting of the entire thread
when replying; others want only the relevant portion of the
previous message. I can't possibly remember all the rules for each
of the 21 newsgroups where I frequently participate.
The ones I have used have been accepted in all groups I subscribe.
(For Web
standards, however, there is only one HTML 4.01 specification and
one one CSS1 specification; and I still have to read the
specifications for details.)
There is many, many websites out there telling usenet netiquette.
In this case, I was replying to the Subject, which indeed did
appear as part of my reply.
Common courtacy would be include subject to body to make it clear.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
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
JRS: In article <42***************@nowhere.not>, dated Sun, 27 Mar 2005
10:57:55, seen in news:comp.infosystems. 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.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
"Sugapablo" <ru**@REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVEsugapabl o.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
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.
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com... "Sugapablo" <ru**@REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVEsugapabl o.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
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.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
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
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:53:48 -0600, me wrote: "kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.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.com
Trawna Publications http://www.trawna.com/
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
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.
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. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. |
