sorry but wuts validation? somebody eduacte me
Printable View
sorry but wuts validation? somebody eduacte me
www.w3c.orgQuote:
Originally posted by FFuryFX
sorry but wuts validation? somebody eduacte me
A validated website is 1 that was coded correctly in whatever markup language that was used (HTML, XHTML 1.0, XHTML1.1, ect..)
I really didn't want to get in a huge arguement over validation.
My final comment: Version 3 of 2a's site was, by far, superiour than version 4. Version 4 looks unfinished and alot of the things just look like they were slapped together.
I can't believe no mod locked this thread, it's just loaded with flames.....
NERD ALERT
i second the point of closing this thread. With comments like those above wots the point in keeping it open. kasracer answered the question its a good answer and helpful to those who dont know. If the thread has now got to childish posts hten why keep it open?Quote:
Originally posted by roro
NERD ALERT
You're giving me a lesson now on what compliant code is? Ha ha, that's hilarious! Maybe you should stick to giving your views rather than labelling someone or someone's opinion "stupid". You will probably do your views more justice if you did.Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
Stupid. Complient code works 100% perfectly fine in Internet Explorer. Complient code doesn't lean towards certain browsers. Complient code versus not complient code can look the same, but the non-complient code can look totally different in other broiwsers because it doesn't know how to interpret the mark-up since it was coded incorrectly.Quote:
Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Have to agree with Tony on this one (I'm sure that will make him sleep better at night! ). As much as anyone tries to make their code as compliant as possible, the truth is that 96+% of users are using IE, while 100% compliant code is catering for Netscape, Opera...etc. So, does that mean you decide not to use some of the more advanced features that IE has to offer, simply because it won't be "compliant"? Or do you accept some degree of non-compliancy in order to deliver the most effective online solution?
If I had to choose (and fair enough, in some cases you can do both) I know which I'd go for.
As someone who has worked in this industry for 6 years now, and has moved from design/developing and into marketing, maybe my views have a little more weight than to simply be dismissed by a programmer with, it would seem, very little experience of the two other main areas of this industry, as stupid. Disagree all you like - as designers, programmers and marketing people will always disagree - but realise that the real world involves certain compromises from all areas, and that as much as you might like to dismiss my views out of hand, I speak from a great deal of experience working with far more experienced programmers than you, and far larger projects than you have (so far).
In other words, spend a few years in the business world before you decide to dismiss someone else's opinion outright.
Just my opinion...
Mate, that site doesn't validate... ;)Quote:
Originally posted by bvgroote
My favourite at the moment is
http://www.24-7media.de/stzbb/
I just have so much respect for this site. I don't see how these guys arent up there with the rest, if you want more, i got plenty.
:confused:
so?
unless thats your point, and your being sarcastic :D
in which case I would respond:
:confused:
so?
After few weeks I really enjoy 2A site, they did a great job!
No, I didn't dismiss your "opinion" as stupid. I dismissed your "fact" as stupid. Saying that complient code isn't geared towards IE is just plain stupid. It's not an opinion because opinions are what you feel about something. I don't udnerstand how you could feel complient code is geared towards other browsers.Quote:
Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
You're giving me a lesson now on what compliant code is? Ha ha, that's hilarious! Maybe you should stick to giving your views rather than labelling someone or someone's opinion "stupid". You will probably do your views more justice if you did.
As someone who has worked in this industry for 6 years now, and has moved from design/developing and into marketing, maybe my views have a little more weight than to simply be dismissed by a programmer with, it would seem, very little experience of the two other main areas of this industry, as stupid. Disagree all you like - as designers, programmers and marketing people will always disagree - but realise that the real world involves certain compromises from all areas, and that as much as you might like to dismiss my views out of hand, I speak from a great deal of experience working with far more experienced programmers than you, and far larger projects than you have (so far).
In other words, spend a few years in the business world before you decide to dismiss someone else's opinion outright.
Just my opinion...
Complient code is just that, complient. It is guarenteed to work in all browsers. Non-complient has no guarentee to work in any browser. Since browsers render things to the standards, programmers also include a crappy quirks rendering engine to render webpages not coded in compient code, so the site may not look the same in all browsers.
I'm not saying complient code is going to look the same in all browsers (IE's CSS2 support leaves alot to be desired) but you have a much better chance it will look correctly in other browsers.
Writing complient code doesn't require extra time, it won't make you miss deadlines, it's not a huge undertaking to make anything complient. The only instaces where complient code should not be used is if either code already exists that HAS to be used and that isn't complient, or if you have to use some sort of "hack" to make things look correctly (The PNG transparency hack and the CSS2 box model hack come to mind for IE).
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by bvgroote
:confused:
so?
I personally think they did an awesome job with the music..... anything else... meh.. I think they definatly could of done betterQuote:
Originally posted by desvsmass
After few weeks I really enjoy 2A site, they did a great job!
LAL!Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer :rolleyes:
Well, I left it unsaid because I thought the party in question would've seen the err of his spelling. But it's COMPLIANT, not complient.
Just as there are standards in html there are standards in english diction.
And like I said, maybe you should get a little more experience in the business world before you dismiss anyone's opinion as "stupid".Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
No, I didn't dismiss your "opinion" as stupid. I dismissed your "fact" as stupid. Saying that complient code isn't geared towards IE is just plain stupid. It's not an opinion because opinions are what you feel about something. I don't udnerstand how you could feel complient code is geared towards other browsers.
Oh, and get straight exactly what someone said too, before you start levelling abuse at anyone or anyone's opinion, however low level that abuse may be. You do yourself a diservice, and only emphasise your lack of experience.
The W3C provide guidelines for developers, not rules, and developers and/or other project stakeholders then choose how much or how little they want to follow those guidelines, relative to the end result they hope to achieve. Note that: end result. You see, I don't really give a flying frig how compliant my code is, but if I believe that I can achieve as good or even a better result with my focus on another area other than the compliancy of my code (let's see, maybe the message I'm communicating for example), then that's all that really interests me. You see, 99% of the stuff I'm involved with I don't really care if someone on a Palm Pilot can't see it, and I also look at the percentages of those accessing by Opera and they're not on my radar.
Look, if you as a developer, can achieve the optimum end result desired by the business goals of the project utlising fully compliant code, then great, and you should go far. However, if you continue calling the planners and managers of these projects stupid because they have a different opinion than you, or decide that something else within the projct is more important - in other words, the ones who will be paying your salary, hiring and firing - then you're not going to get far. Have an opinion by all means, but don't step across that line of not valuing other, in many cases much more experienced, opinions with equal weight. As I said, you'll do yourself and your career a disservice.
No, it is not "wrong", nor is it "stupid" when I state that certain code and features work in IE that do not work in other browsers. That, my friend, has been a fact for many years. If you don't know that, then maybe you're not as knowledgable as you believe. Now, for all I know the latest release of IE may not have those features anymore, and it may be 100% compliant, but you know what? I doubt it. And if there happens to be a feature that IE has, that is not part of the W3C guidelines, but that I think will help my project achieve it's business goals, then you know what? I'm probably going to use it.
And THAT is a fact, that your opinion ain't going to change - unless you're the one paying my bills.
Cheers
Dave
And that, my friends, is hilarious!Quote:
Originally posted by annexion
Well, I left it unsaid because I thought the party in question would've seen the err of his spelling. But it's COMPLIANT, not complient.
Just as there are standards in html there are standards in english diction.
So, we could say that the most important goal of his post was to communicate the idea about "compliancy", not whether the spelling was 100% accurate, yes?
Now, do you think he may get his own point...???
I don't know if it is just me, but this argument over validation is ridiculous, and is way out of hand.
If it doesn't end, I wouldn't be surprised to see a mod close it for you.
the last couple pages have really little to do with 2advanced. maybe we need another thread somewhere about compliancy.
whatever the case, i think by now everyone has said their bit about 2a cuz their hasn't been much recent discussion about it. so maybe its time to close this one:)
But I was finding this kinda fun... ;)
Agreed, this has been quite educational for me, for example, Davo has taught me how to "ownz0rs" people with clever and witty posts.Quote:
Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
But I was finding this kinda fun... ;)
:cow:
Did you read anything I said? Why do you have to focus on compliance at all? It should be a no brainer. If you know how to code in HTML, you can pump out complient pages, if you don't know HTML or use a really crappy editor like GoLive or FrontPage.... well the code is going to be bulky AND not validate. Validation gives you alot better chance to display correctly in other browsers. Saying you don't care about other browsers is just stupid, especially since ALOT of people use Mozilla and an increasing amount of people are starting to use Opera alot more.Quote:
Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
And like I said, maybe you should get a little more experience in the business world before you dismiss anyone's opinion as "stupid".
Oh, and get straight exactly what someone said too, before you start levelling abuse at anyone or anyone's opinion, however low level that abuse may be. You do yourself a diservice, and only emphasise your lack of experience.
The W3C provide guidelines for developers, not rules, and developers and/or other project stakeholders then choose how much or how little they want to follow those guidelines, relative to the end result they hope to achieve. Note that: end result. You see, I don't really give a flying frig how compliant my code is, but if I believe that I can achieve as good or even a better result with my focus on another area other than the compliancy of my code (let's see, maybe the message I'm communicating for example), then that's all that really interests me. You see, 99% of the stuff I'm involved with I don't really care if someone on a Palm Pilot can't see it, and I also look at the percentages of those accessing by Opera and they're not on my radar.
Look, if you as a developer, can achieve the optimum end result desired by the business goals of the project utlising fully compliant code, then great, and you should go far. However, if you continue calling the planners and managers of these projects stupid because they have a different opinion than you, or decide that something else within the projct is more important - in other words, the ones who will be paying your salary, hiring and firing - then you're not going to get far. Have an opinion by all means, but don't step across that line of not valuing other, in many cases much more experienced, opinions with equal weight. As I said, you'll do yourself and your career a disservice.
It's not a good thing limiting yourself to just 1 browser and a pretty stupid business choice since not all customers may use IE.
Also, if you want a webpage to be created and displayed correctly in a palm pilot, you don't make a regular webpage as usual, there are special tools and mark-up you should use so if someone visits your site in a paml pilot, they will get the correct version and not the huge site. Sadly, almost know one knows about that kind of stuff and it's very hard to surf on paml pilots as is.
No Browser is 100% complient. IE is getting there, the HTML and XHTML compliance are almost 100%, there CSS isn't the greatest for positioning but isn't far off.Quote:
No, it is not "wrong", nor is it "stupid" when I state that certain code and features work in IE that do not work in other browsers. That, my friend, has been a fact for many years. If you don't know that, then maybe you're not as knowledgable as you believe. Now, for all I know the latest release of IE may not have those features anymore, and it may be 100% compliant, but you know what? I doubt it. And if there happens to be a feature that IE has, that is not part of the W3C guidelines, but that I think will help my project achieve it's business goals, then you know what? I'm probably going to use it.
And THAT is a fact, that your opinion ain't going to change - unless you're the one paying my bills.
Cheers
Dave
IE 5.5 and 5 are almost the same as 6 in there ability to render code. Hell IE 4 can render complient code perfectly, so I have no idea where you got this "fact" from. Granted, not all browsers (including IE) can display everything perfectly, but the main problem with that is people like you who refuse to use complient code. Then the programmers have to create "quirks" engines to render incorrect webpages. So they spend so much time working on that, they can't impliment all the new and great things that is in CSS2 and soon to be CSS3. If things don't change, the web will develop as slow has it has been, that is why you need to write complient code, so there will be no need for this quirks engines.
If you cannot understand that and refuse to write non-complient code, then you're slowing down progress.
Do you realize that CSS has been out since before 1996? It took soooo long to get to this point because people never learned how to code in mark-up correctly.
Instead of having 3 ways to use CSS, programmers have to create about 1000 possibilities webdesigners may come up with just to make sure everything works. When programmers are forced to create 20 times the needed code just to render something an incompetant HTML coder created, progress becomes slow to nill.
Like I said before, it takes absolutely no more effort in making complient code than non-complient code. Your entire arguement is based on a flawed assumption that complient code takes longer to create and code and requires you to focus on it alot more. That is incorrect, like I said before, complient code can be generated with as much thinking as writing non-complient code, you just have to actaully know HTML or XHTML.
You do not need to think and planning soo much for HTML code as you may need to with your graphics or SQL or anything else, there is no problem with that, writing complient HTML is very very very easy to do. If you honestly think writing complient HTML (or XHTML, which is what everyone should be using no since it's alot better than HTML) takes alot of focus off of a project, then amybe you should pick up an HTML book and actaully learn the language you based a business apon.
www.w3c.org please go and learn about validation, don't hold everyone back because you refuse to write mark-up correctly. It isn't hard and I expected better from webdesign companies.
I'm not going to dive into this discussion too far, but I think you just hit on the main point of why people don't spend more time writing compliant HTML code. The overwhelming majority of users do use IE, and in the context of business users the percentage of IE users is even higher.Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
Saying you don't care about other browsers is just stupid, especially since ALOT of people use Mozilla and an increasing amount of people are starting to use Opera alot more.
It's not a good thing limiting yourself to just 1 browser and a pretty stupid business choice since not all customers may use IE.
In the business world developing anything ultimately comes down to a few key factors and the two important ones are time and money. The more you have of each the better the product can be. In most cases developers are working on projects with limited time and money resources so when it is known that for approximately 90 - 100% of the customers who will use it, it will work just fine, it does not make sense to spend the extra time and money ensuring the code is 100% compliant. This even happens in other industries, take automobiles for instance, ever hear about the Ford Pinto (oh sorry, that was probably way before your time).
Maybe once you have some more experience and have had the pleasure of having project managers and clients breathing down your neck to get a project done (under budget and on time) you will see the light and realize that always coding 100% compliant code for browsers is a pipe dream and nothing else.
ive actually found this very interesting to read, and i dont believe this should be closed.
ok, in design there is a saying... 'rules are there to be broken' this rule actually applies to many things in life.
sometimes you have to stick to the rules, but you can bend them, push them, or totally disregard them... when this happens mistakes are made, errors occur, and a new piece of design emerges that creates a reaction... some sort of emotion from the designer and the person viewing that design that would never have been achieved through compliance.
i can see a place for both.
if im designing a corporate brochure for barclays bank, spread sheets etc im not going to go mad with florescent colours and tartan. thats simply because the financial world has a set of rules they like to stick to.
but then i wouldnt have an experimental piece of design, something new that pushes the boudaries, stuck untilising rules and regulations.
And that comes from exactly how many years of business experience?Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
It's not a good thing limiting yourself to just 1 browser and a pretty stupid business choice since not all customers may use IE.
And you're going to tell me how I should run my own business? So exactly how much do you know about my business, or my customers?
So, IE has no unique features that are as yet not available on most other browsers and currently non-compliant? You'd better inform Microsoft then I'd suggest...Quote:
IE 5.5 and 5 are almost the same as 6 in there ability to render code. Hell IE 4 can render complient code perfectly, so I have no idea where you got this "fact" from.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...es/default.asp
(and I'm sure there are others that my quick look-up missed)
Enhanced SMIL 2.0 multimedia support
Provides continued support for the developing synchronized multimedia integration language (SMIL) 2.0 in progress at the World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C), most notably in the area of transitions, allowing the application of filters and effects, such as fading an image, transitioning between text or media elements by using wipes, and applying a graduated color background to an element, all at designated times, without the need for script.
Mouse wheel events
Introduces a new set of events related to the use of the mouse wheel. These events enable your content or application to better react to user input.
Automatic ellipses for text overflow
Provides support for ellipses when text content overflows the bounds of its container. Microsoft is working with the CSS Working Group at the W3C to incorporate this functionality in future enhancements to the CSS specification.
Gee, seems like there's a few extras that IE has that are not yet W3C compliant... and that may add to the experience of my users. Hey, I may think about using them!
Anyway, you've got enough info. If you still insist on standing there stamping your feet, red in the face at those "heretics" who don't follow religiously the W3C "rules" then go for it.
As I said, you stick to the "rules" all you want. In the meantime I'll utilise the W3C's "guidelines" as I and my project stakeholders see fit, and as works best for our business.
Cheers
Dave
Let's get back to 2a here...
Something interesting I've found on my ventures across the Internet...
Is it just me, or does 2advanced's site look awfully similar to this site, except in red?
It's just you. ;) Only similarity is that it's a "panel type" design. And how many sites use that? Thousands.Quote:
Originally posted by aarondesign
Let's get back to 2a here...
Something interesting I've found on my ventures across the Internet...
Is it just me, or does 2advanced's site look awfully similar to this site, except in red?
And something I found quite amusing, with regards to the screen size aspect, is that this one - like others - will have much of it's content off screen for most users, and yet the actual area they use for their main content is so small, so they end up having to show minimal content or else have scrolling in there. Maybe designing so that the "main" content area is actually the largest area on the screen would be smarter?
Anyway, just an idea/opinion...
It does not take any extra time and money to create complient code unless they hire incompetant mark-up coders. Anyone who actaully knows HTML or XHTML can spit out webpages quickly and have them complient, it takes no extra time as long as the people know the mark-up language. When they don't know mark-up languages, sites can become broken in other browsers and not work correctly in further implimentations of Internet Explorer.Quote:
Originally posted by dgrigg
In the business world developing anything ultimately comes down to a few key factors and the two important ones are time and money. The more you have of each the better the product can be. In most cases developers are working on projects with limited time and money resources so when it is known that for approximately 90 - 100% of the customers who will use it, it will work just fine, it does not make sense to spend the extra time and money ensuring the code is 100% compliant. This even happens in other industries, take automobiles for instance, ever hear about the Ford Pinto (oh sorry, that was probably way before your time).
I think it should be closed, for interesting read, go to www.w3c.org or www.glish.com/css .Quote:
Originally posted by Onionboy
ive actually found this very interesting to read, and i dont believe this should be closed.
The thing is, breaking rules won't make a website fantastic, it only can create problems. Mark-up works 1 way and 1 way only, just because people write it incorrectly does not make a site cooler.Quote:
ive actually found this very interesting to read, and i dont believe this should be closed.
ok, in design there is a saying... 'rules are there to be broken' this rule actually applies to many things in life.
sometimes you have to stick to the rules, but you can bend them, push them, or totally disregard them... when this happens mistakes are made, errors occur, and a new piece of design emerges that creates a reaction... some sort of emotion from the designer and the person viewing that design that would never have been achieved through compliance.
I'm not telling you how you should run your business, I'm just telling you that you may be eliminating potential clients. What about the Linux and hosting people? They may be on Linux looking for a new website and they won't be coming to someone who designs for only IE. I don't know of any car companies who make for europe or japan only.Quote:
Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
And that comes from exactly how many years of business experience?
And you're going to tell me how I should run my own business? So exactly how much do you know about my business, or my customers?
DX Filters really do suck, and this is exactly what microsoft wants to get into the standard. Works now but they are absolutely HORRIBLE! I've seen high end, 3GHz+ systems freeze for several seconds just to load them. I seriously hope they don't get that standard unless they fix that crap, because right now it's absolutely horrible and there are better ways to do things. Fading iamges are extremely annoying aswell(2a fixed that on v4, when it first came out the ads near the bottom fades and slide in, VERY annoying but now it's very suddle)Quote:
Enhanced SMIL 2.0 multimedia support
Provides continued support for the developing synchronized multimedia integration language (SMIL) 2.0 in progress at the World-Wide Web Consortium (W3C), most notably in the area of transitions, allowing the application of filters and effects, such as fading an image, transitioning between text or media elements by using wipes, and applying a graduated color background to an element, all at designated times, without the need for script.
Another reason to hate microsoft. If they actaully think messing with the abilities of the mouse wheel is okay, then they got major problems.....Quote:
So, IE has no unique features that are as yet not available on most other browsers and currently non-compliant? You'd better inform Microsoft then I'd suggest...
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...es/default.asp
(and I'm sure there are others that my quick look-up missed)
Mouse wheel events
Introduces a new set of events related to the use of the mouse wheel. These events enable your content or application to better react to user input.
Quote:
Automatic ellipses for text overflow
Provides support for ellipses when text content overflows the bounds of its container. Microsoft is working with the CSS Working Group at the W3C to incorporate this functionality in future enhancements to the CSS specification.
Ellipses for overflowing text? Good lord will that be annoying...Quote:
I actaully do not have a problem with sites that take advantage of some of the DXFilters, as long as it validates 100% without using them, because when they use them, it will only change the site in IE, while all the other browsers will still render it correctly without them. However, DXFilters are very very slow. I actaully use them on my website. Funny how microsoft wants to make things standards, when they do not follow the standard themselves to handle PNG graphics. It really sucks webmasters are forced to use a DXFilter to render PNG graphics correctly that are over 24bit and have any transparency.Quote:
Gee, seems like there's a few extras that IE has that are not yet W3C compliant... and that may add to the experience of my users. Hey, I may think about using them!
Anyway, you've got enough info. If you still insist on standing there stamping your feet, red in the face at those "heretics" who don't follow religiously the W3C "rules" then go for it.
As I said, you stick to the "rules" all you want. In the meantime I'll utilise the W3C's "guidelines" as I and my project stakeholders see fit, and as works best for our business.
Cheers
Dave
I still wouldn't recommend using any DXFilters. Use DHTML if you want to do some fancy effects.
you really need to get out more.!
and no thats not a childish statement. its a fact... if you think people 'experimenting' with new technologies is bad then go hide under the bed.
as for the 2A site which this thread is about.
is 2A ever going to fix the spelling mistake 'inorder' to 'in order' or do you americans spell that incorrectly as well?
oo-er another rule being broken eh? whats the world coming to?
as soon as the brits stop spelling colour and favourite with U's we'll start to appreciate worldly grammatical standards...and maybe even measurement standards! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Onionboy
is 2A ever going to fix the spelling mistake 'inorder' to 'in order' or do you americans spell that incorrectly as well?
hey kasracer:
you should look to all the sites posted on "coolsites" and in "sitecheck" and tell everybody if the site is complient;
is very unfair you only "attack" 2adv, go and verify the other "cool" sites in this forum.
another thing, you just can judge a cool site because of that, maybe in sitecheck, but a cool site is a cool site for a lot different things, and i not see a good thing continue arguing about complient in a thread of 2advanced, you should start a new one, you are off-topic here.
Funny, but that seems exactly what you're doing. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
I'm not telling you how you should run your business
So who says that I'm after Linux and/or hosting people as customers?Quote:
I'm just telling you that you may be eliminating potential clients. What about the Linux and hosting people? They may be on Linux looking for a new website and they won't be coming to someone who designs for only IE. I don't know of any car companies who make for europe or japan only.
In fact, I can even say categorically, that if one of them came knocking on my door, I'd steer them to someone else 'cos they're not my market, and I'm not interested in them - not in the least.
Get it yet?
You mean the rest of the world don't you? It's only the Americans who spell colour and favourite wrong. The rest of the English speaking world does not... ;)Quote:
Originally posted by sixtailer
as soon as the brits stop spelling colour and favourite with U's we'll start to appreciate worldly grammatical standards...and maybe even measurement standards! :rolleyes:
that isn't the only thing we do wrong...I don't even have to mention politics.....Quote:
Originally posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
You mean the rest of the world don't you? It's only the Americans who spell colour and favourite wrong. The rest of the English speaking world does not... ;)
EDIT: 300th post....yay me :D
in kasracer's original post about compliancy, it was a one sentence mention that it wasn't 100% compliant. if it was like a half page rant about it, then i would think thats overboard, but cmon, the original comment was like a small mention. its just become SOOO overblown. now you all seem to think hes some manic obsessed w3c police officer.
anways, changing topics back to the original:)
over at ultrashock eric jordan finally posted his comments about the site, and also gives a some great examples of how the prophecy demo reel was made - some pretty interesting stuff
http://forums.ultrashock.com/ff.htm?...=&pagenumber=7
def should give a bit more respect to the demo reel if you didn't before. like i said earlier, i think that was one of the coolest accomplishments.
Dude, he's the one that started throwing the "stupid" comment about just 'cos he didn't agree with an opinion, which has helped with is "W3C cop" appearance. I don't think I'm being anything but reasonable in my responses, as much as I could be excused for being a little less diplomaic with some of his responses to me.Quote:
Originally posted by stevietat2
in kasracer's original post about compliancy, it was a one sentence mention that it wasn't 100% compliant. if it was like a half page rant about it, then i would think thats overboard, but cmon, the original comment was like a small mention. its just become SOOO overblown. now you all seem to think hes some manic obsessed w3c police officer.
Besides, like I said, I'm kind of enjoying this. It's just too easy sometimes...
Cruel I know, but it's been that kind of month for me... ;)
Hey, it's all on topic. The discussion went from issues about the site, to compliant code, to the concept of compliancy, meandering just as normal conversations do.Quote:
anways, changing topics back to the original
Don't you now be a forum cop! ;)
just because you can see the progression from 2a to compliancy doesn't mean we're still ON topic here. i was just trying to post some more interesting information that is more directly related to 2a.
now don't start calling me some flashkit gestapo;) - i think compliancy is an interesting debate. but wouldn't it be better in its own thread? perhaps people who don't visit coolsites or even this thread would really like comment on it, but don't know its here. right now its hidden in this thread being debated by only a handful of people. i think it could make an interesting debate in its own thread.
anyways, im not pointing any fingers at you or anyone else if thats what you thought i was doing.(except for the stupid one liner sarcasm postings). i think its pretty cool this hasn't turned into a total flame war yet.
as for the link i posted, i am just interested to see how other people respond what mr. jordan said about the prophecy, especially any of you guys who have experience in 3d and such - cuz i don't:D
btw, just noticed theyve put a video up from the neverrain night. its up on the first page when u enter.
--gotta like the big 2a logos flying around the walls and ceiling:D
I've just read ejordan's post at ultrashock and it was an interesting insight into behind the scenes work at 2A. I thought he came across really well and I'd like to see him post here (or there) much more often.
Hat's off to shane for staying up 56 hours and missing neverrain (his eyes must have been on sticks) to tweak the site in the early hours of it being live.
I'm looking forward to seeing the prophecy case study.
Ian
PS - while I'm here, anyone know why the Greer Systems link doesn't work in the portfolio section because I'd really like to have a peek at that.
Cheers,
Ian
I did that before, I was telling people in the members sites what didn't validate and tried to help them fix it.Quote:
Originally posted by roro
hey kasracer:
you should look to all the sites posted on "coolsites" and in "sitecheck" and tell everybody if the site is complient;
is very unfair you only "attack" 2adv, go and verify the other "cool" sites in this forum.
another thing, you just can judge a cool site because of that, maybe in sitecheck, but a cool site is a cool site for a lot different things, and i not see a good thing continue arguing about complient in a thread of 2advanced, you should start a new one, you are off-topic here.
Only 1 person ever talked to me about compliancy then I never seen him again.
No one here cares about compliancy at all, and that is really sad. The only thing it can do is slow down development of new internet technology, but do whatever the hell you guys want to do.
No one here seems to understand about how easy complient code is created, everyone thinks it's hard. Just like C++, all the newbies thinks it is complicated as ****, but they only make it complicated themselves.
If you want to use non-complient code, fine go right ahead, just don't expect new and cool things to develop as quickly.
If I attacked everyone about compliance, then all threads would turn into what this is. I am really sick and tired of arguing with you people, it's like talking to a brick wall.
So was Javascript always compliant as it was being developed and used for some cool effects/functions?Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
If you want to use non-complient code, fine go right ahead, just don't expect new and cool things to develop as quickly.
Was DHTML always compliant as it was being developed and used for some cool effects/functions?
And I'm sure there are many other examples of new technology.
I think you might benefit from doing a little research into the history of technological innovation, and see that some of the largest leaps in innovation happend from people breaking the rules.
(and I don't just mean on the Internet)
And in case you still haven't got it yet (which obviously you haven't), nobody has said that compliant code is "difficult" to do, and no one has a problem with your belief that everyone should stick to compliant code. The only problem we have is with your insistance that we can't decide for ourselves what is best for our own businesses. Believe whatever you want, but don't even try to stand there, fresh out of high school, and tell me that I don't know what's best for my own business with absolutely no knowledge of what I or my business is about.
And exactly why you will continue to annoy the f*** out of people, if you continue to attack them. This place is not abut attacking people, it is about sharing views and opinions. If someone has a different one than you then [b]it is their choice[/i], so get over yourself and realise that this is a free world with the freedom to do what the f*** we want.Quote:
If I attacked everyone about compliance, then all threads would turn into what this is. I am really sick and tired of arguing with you people, it's like talking to a brick wall.
Get it yet?
And yes, as people who have been around here a while know, I will debate views very strongly at times, but at no time will I say that you do not have the right to hold the views you do. There is a significant difference.
the fact that you acknowledge "attacking" is testiment to your inability to comprehend the purpose of these forums. Take your hate elsewhere and quit bothering people who would enjoy doing other things. nobody would bust Van Goghs balls if he hadnt set up his painting canvas "on par with some standard."Quote:
Originally posted by kasracer
If I attacked everyone about compliance, then all threads would turn into what this is. I am really sick and tired of arguing with you people, it's like talking to a brick wall.
...just leave.
I'd actually prefer if he just realised there's a difference between holding a view and trying to tell people what to do, since he obviously has got something of value to offer with his knowledge of compliancy.Quote:
Originally posted by sixtailer
the fact that you acknowledge "attacking" is testiment to your inability to comprehend the purpose of these forums. Take your hate elsewhere and quit bothering people who would enjoy doing other things. nobody would bust Van Goghs balls if he hadnt set up his painting canvas "on par with some standard."
...just leave.
And it is only bloody compliancy for Christ's sake! It's not as if we're arguing for the sacrifice of everyone's first born is it??