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