Hi all!

Finally I have made my site valid XHTML 1.0 transitional and CSS! (http://keefe.hyspex.com = not my main site)

What I want to know is, do you bother to make your sites valid markup?

Cheers!

I think the machines (Google etc.) appreciate it! And it's just more professional.




Michael

You're right... Also, it ensures cross-browser compatible web pages

Although validating can be boring, i think it is very important... Without it, those not using IE might have a very hard time on the web

I haven't bothered to switch to XHTML yet because I don't see a need for it yet....the HTML 4.01 Transitional DTD seems to do everything that I need it to do.....

As far as validating XHTML/HTML documents though....doesn't the doctype definition almost force you to validate your documents?....If you actually do include a DTD, then the web page will not completely work as intended until you actually do validate your work (for the most part)...

I know that if you don;t include a DTD, the browser (especially IE) will try to simulate the proper rendering of the code....but this is an illusion, and ultimately your code will cause unpredicable results in corss-browser situations....

So I gues my point is, if you bother to include a DTD (and you should), then you should always validate your code against the rules of this DTD...

>Finally I have made my site valid XHTML 1.0 transitional and CSS!
Now go for strict. That's what my page uses.

>do you bother to make your sites valid markup?
Yes, if only so that I can thumb my nose at lesser developers.

Whether you include the DTD or not is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Browsers don't look at the DTD itself; they just say, "Is the DTD there? It is! So I'll assume the coder knows what he's doing, so I won't replicate the bugs of IE 5.5." The DTD says nothing about how to render a document; it just contains a formal description of what is and isn't valid syntax. It's not that browsers try to simulate the proper rendering of the code, it's that they simulate _improper_ rendering of code, for backwards compatibility.

Of course, to be a valid HTML document, one must have a DTD.

So what I'm saying, randallj, is that everything you said is basically wrong. :o

Ahh, that makes sense...



Thanks for emphasizing this. :lol: Kudos, sister.

I validate whenever I remember to. It's usually not a problem, as the worst I do is forget a closing tag or some such. And compliance means that browser compatability is usually a cinch.

Not to mention I'm somewhat of a perfectionist anyways...

But really, it's easier on the browser, usually easier on the end user, and a heck of a lot easier on the next person to look at your code if someone has to.

although validating is important and I think that has been covered well so far, no one has mentioned validating for 508 and bobby standards. I think it is just as important to be accessible as it is to have a valid structure.

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.