Alan Silver wrote:
What a stupid comment!! Sure, CSS is the way to go, but I can point you
to loads of sites that are neither ugly or kludgy that don't use CSS.
Beauty is not achieved by CSS, it's achieved by skill in design,
whatever the technology you use.
True, beauty can be achieved without CSS -- but then your site is kludgy.
There are four paths you may choose:
* no CSS, no <font> =ugly
* <font> =kludgy and perhaps ugly
* CSS =perhaps ugly
* <fontand CSS =kludgy and perhaps ugly
Thus the only way to avoid both kludginess and ugliness is to use CSS.
Using CSS doesn't guarantee that you'll avoid either, but it allows you to.
(I'm using <fonthere to represent all presentational HTML.)
It's possible to make beautiful sites using table-based layout and
<fonttags - I wouldn't do it, nor would I recommend it, but it can be
done.
Precisely -- you wouldn't recommend it because it's a kludge.
Also, it says "Every decent Web 2.0 page includes at least one RSS feed"
which another load of old crock. Sure RSS is very useful for sites that
are appropriate, but to suggest that a site *must* use RSS to be decent
is pathetic.
I don't suggest a "site" must use RSS. I suggest a "decent Web 2.0 site"
must.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2#Technology_overview:
| A Web 2.0 website typically features a number of the
| following techniques:
|
| * Unobtrusive Rich Internet Application techniques (such
| as Ajax)
| * CSS
| * Semantically valid XHTML markup and/or the use of
| Microformats
| * Syndication and aggregation of data in RSS/Atom
| * Clean and meaningful URLs
| * Weblog publishing
| * Mashups
| * REST or XML Webservice APIs
Points 5-7 of that list are difficult to test for programatically.
Besides which, if you look at the validation results, you'll see that a
site can pass the validation without having an RSS feed. In fact, there
are only three things (so far) that will fail a page:
* non-use of CSS
* Transitional doctype
* triggering Quirks Mode
All in all, this looks like a (bad) joke site, or one written by a
clueless geek who thinks that using the latest technology, even when
inappropriate is all it takes to produce the "new web."
It's both (except the "clueless" part). From the front page:
| Please note that this site is not a validator in the formal,
| SGML sense of the word. We hope this tool provides a kooky,
| but useful service to help your site reach its full Web 2.0
| glory. If you want formal (X)HTML validation, try the WDG
| validator.
When it's written, the "About" page will provide more information about
the purpose of the site; but it's still in the early stages of development.
Ultimately, I hope the site will provide three things:
1. A bit of a giggle;
2. A way of testing your site to get ideas about what things
you might be able to improve on: not stuff that you're
doing wrong; but directions that you might want to go in
the future. People might test their site, notice that they
don't have an "Atom feed"; they don't even know what one is;
so they follow the link about Atom, read about it a bit, and
decide whether or not they want to have one; if they do,
they just need to follow a further link through to
atomenabled.org. And;
3. Once I've done a bit more work on it, I plan on releasing
the PHP code. I imagine this could be handy for medium to
large organisations doing QA on their own websites and
intranets. They can disable the fluff modules they don't
care about (e.g. podcasting) and write modules for things
they *do* care about (e.g. ensuring the TM symbol follows
all their trademarks). The framework for writing the
modules is really easy -- the DCMI module that is the subject
of this thread is only 46 lines of PHP. It could be a very
useful and adaptable tool. This will be GPLed of course.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact 
