•
•
•
•
What is DaniWeb IT Discussion Community?
You're currently browsing the HTML and CSS section within the Web Development category of DaniWeb, a massive community of 363,555 software developers, web developers, Internet marketers, and tech gurus who are all enthusiastic about making contacts, networking, and learning from each other. In fact, there are 3,877 IT professionals currently interacting right now! Registration is free, only takes a minute and lets you enjoy all of the interactive features of the site.
Please support our HTML and CSS advertiser: Lunarpages Web Hosting
Views: 2296 | Replies: 13
 |
•
•
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 0
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by jglw 
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.google.com
LOL. If you can make $25bn without meeting the standard W3 can kiss my ass if they think I'm gonna waste anymore of my time and my customers money trying to jump through retarded little hoops.
If you think that's bad check out eBay's! 158 errors!
But I think the idea is that if we all do it the web will be a better place. Your argument - equisitely phrased I must say - sounds like one that IE would use so that they don't have to implement the standards, which makes our lives a lot harder.
Last edited by bazboiee : Oct 5th, 2007 at 6:28 am.
MMMoooh Mooooh MMooh (In true Beaker style)!
•
•
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 24
Reputation:
Rep Power: 3
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
It could be argued that the stricter browsers are the ones that are actually making our life harder. Personally, I find coding for IE much easier. It's just a case of who's more stubborn W3 or Microsoft. If you've ever met someone who works in standards, they'll say it's the standard to be stubborn. Maybe it could be wise to make a program that'll add all those pxs, quote marks, forward slashes and so on. It's be worth a bomb.
•
•
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Deptford, London
Posts: 916
Reputation:
Rep Power: 4
Solved Threads: 45
Posting Shark
Coding 'for' any browser is as easy as coding for any other browser; once you learn the discrepancies of said browser. The standard is stubborn because it's a standard...! As a designer; you don't have to adhere if you don't wish to.
It's best to only use the subset of a given standard that you know is interpreted identically by all popular UAs at this moment in time. This approach saves time and effort in the long run. Validation isn't really relevant, but it's something to aim for with every page. Regardless; you get most of the benefits of standardization without validation - if you break your doctype's rules, your code is still treated as being in that doctype; and most browsers are forgiving of all but the most heinous of markup crimes.
Anyway, the latest versions of popular browsers DO conform quite well to the current W3C standards; and, if anything, the standard(s) aren't strict enough; because there appears to be room for interpretation of certain things.
It's best to only use the subset of a given standard that you know is interpreted identically by all popular UAs at this moment in time. This approach saves time and effort in the long run. Validation isn't really relevant, but it's something to aim for with every page. Regardless; you get most of the benefits of standardization without validation - if you break your doctype's rules, your code is still treated as being in that doctype; and most browsers are forgiving of all but the most heinous of markup crimes.
Anyway, the latest versions of popular browsers DO conform quite well to the current W3C standards; and, if anything, the standard(s) aren't strict enough; because there appears to be room for interpretation of certain things.
If it only works in Internet Explorer; it doesn't work.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,361
Reputation:
Rep Power: 6
Solved Threads: 90
If you use IE's nonstandard extensions, your code will not work on other browsers.
I use two kinds of pages, depending on who I expect to use it:
- XHTML 1.0 Strict for pages I expect to be read mainly in the US. The problem is that my ISP adds stuff that doesn't validate in any doctype, to display their stupid ads.
- Non-doctype pages which almost validate, but can also be read on some of the older browsers and computers in foreign countries, including those using the browsers of the '80s and '90s.
I also writer my code so that it displays the same on IE and FF.
I use two kinds of pages, depending on who I expect to use it:
- XHTML 1.0 Strict for pages I expect to be read mainly in the US. The problem is that my ISP adds stuff that doesn't validate in any doctype, to display their stupid ads.
- Non-doctype pages which almost validate, but can also be read on some of the older browsers and computers in foreign countries, including those using the browsers of the '80s and '90s.
I also writer my code so that it displays the same on IE and FF.
Daylight-saving time uses more gasoline
|
•
•
•
•
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DaniWeb HTML and CSS Marketplace
Linear Mode
- how to validate checkbox with different names? (HTML and CSS)
- Help: How to validate a string in datagrid while edit mode (ASP.NET)
- web address validate in javascript (JavaScript / DHTML / AJAX)
- Searching for script to validate member's websites (PHP)
Other Threads in the HTML and CSS Forum
- Previous Thread: Wordpress plugin problem
- Next Thread: wrapping bulletted text
