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.