Alot of people who post for reviews on their web site on this forum have alot of invalid tags in their HTML source code. It seems that the thrill of getting a page on the Internet has caused them to over look one of the most important aspects of web design, using valid HTML.<br />
<br />
From some posts on this forum that I have been involved in a few of the people dont seem to be to botherd in the use of valid HTML. The results of having an invalid page can cause a browser not to display a page completely. Overture.com have problems with a no show page in teh latest version of Opera!<br />
<br />
If you run some of the biggest sites on the net through a validator then alot of them fail miserably:<br />
<br />
<br />
Yahoo<br />
Google<br />
Microsoft<br />
MSN<br />
Lycos<br />
AOL<br />
<br />
<br />
The list does go on but these are just a few of the big names on the list.<br />
<br />
How often do people validate their code on sites such as:<br />
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/">http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/</a><!-- m --><br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/">http://validator.w3.org/</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
There are times when invalid code is the only way around a certain problem and on the last site I designed there was no alternative but to have the page invalid or risk IE not behaving and the showing the page properly. At present I am updating a few other sites to make sure they are HTML 4.01 Transtional and valid.<br />
<br />
So is it a case that people can't see the point or just be botherd?<!--content-->I think it's more they can't be bothered. I have used the validator at w3 for a couple of my site pages, and it did help me make the site cleaner. It is a lot of extra effort though, and many people don't care to do it at all.<!--content-->If you read any HTML books or read any tutorials on the authoring language then it wouldnt be any bother, it would come as second nature!<!--content-->By the amount of people in the poll it shows how many people care about valid code.<!--content-->Being html 4.01 compliant is an honorable goal - but older browsers may not see this.<br />
<br />
Most of the population only update their browser when it comes with a brand new PC. ISP's like AOL do a good job of keeping users up to date with their constant releases, but there are also many others, like Freeserve and Tesco, where you get the disk once and don't pay a fee (just the call charges).<br />
<br />
Being valid is a different matter.<br />
<br />
Originally posted by creative666<br />
there was no alternative but to have the page invalid or risk IE not behaving <br />
<br />
<br />
I have heard a similar story with the DirectX libraries. There is a group that is converting DirectX games to run through Linux. They have discovered that the games programmers are taking advantage of undocumented errors in the DirectX code to improve games performance.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to be valid, there is less risk of discrepancy on cross-browser platforms. But as you say, creative, there may be no alternative to get it to work.<!--content-->But the whole idea of a DOCTYPE heading is for the browser to understand where a valid version of the HTML document resides.<br />
<br />
So HTML 4.01 transitional can be found at <br />
<br />
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" <br />
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"><br />
<br />
If a browser has any troubles with the source code.<br />
<br />
I understand what you say about people not updating their browsers though. I work for an English ISP (not gonna mention them or i'll get alot of abuse problay
) and on the tech help desk where I work we still get customers with IE4 and they come with browsing problems all the time. On our registration CD we offer IE5 but they seem reluctant to upgrade. They are stuck in a comfortable rut.<!--content-->
<br />
From some posts on this forum that I have been involved in a few of the people dont seem to be to botherd in the use of valid HTML. The results of having an invalid page can cause a browser not to display a page completely. Overture.com have problems with a no show page in teh latest version of Opera!<br />
<br />
If you run some of the biggest sites on the net through a validator then alot of them fail miserably:<br />
<br />
<br />
Yahoo<br />
Google<br />
Microsoft<br />
MSN<br />
Lycos<br />
AOL<br />
<br />
<br />
The list does go on but these are just a few of the big names on the list.<br />
<br />
How often do people validate their code on sites such as:<br />
<br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/">http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/</a><!-- m --><br />
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://validator.w3.org/">http://validator.w3.org/</a><!-- m --><br />
<br />
There are times when invalid code is the only way around a certain problem and on the last site I designed there was no alternative but to have the page invalid or risk IE not behaving and the showing the page properly. At present I am updating a few other sites to make sure they are HTML 4.01 Transtional and valid.<br />
<br />
So is it a case that people can't see the point or just be botherd?<!--content-->I think it's more they can't be bothered. I have used the validator at w3 for a couple of my site pages, and it did help me make the site cleaner. It is a lot of extra effort though, and many people don't care to do it at all.<!--content-->If you read any HTML books or read any tutorials on the authoring language then it wouldnt be any bother, it would come as second nature!<!--content-->By the amount of people in the poll it shows how many people care about valid code.<!--content-->Being html 4.01 compliant is an honorable goal - but older browsers may not see this.<br />
<br />
Most of the population only update their browser when it comes with a brand new PC. ISP's like AOL do a good job of keeping users up to date with their constant releases, but there are also many others, like Freeserve and Tesco, where you get the disk once and don't pay a fee (just the call charges).<br />
<br />
Being valid is a different matter.<br />
<br />
Originally posted by creative666<br />
there was no alternative but to have the page invalid or risk IE not behaving <br />
<br />
<br />
I have heard a similar story with the DirectX libraries. There is a group that is converting DirectX games to run through Linux. They have discovered that the games programmers are taking advantage of undocumented errors in the DirectX code to improve games performance.<br />
<br />
I think it is important to be valid, there is less risk of discrepancy on cross-browser platforms. But as you say, creative, there may be no alternative to get it to work.<!--content-->But the whole idea of a DOCTYPE heading is for the browser to understand where a valid version of the HTML document resides.<br />
<br />
So HTML 4.01 transitional can be found at <br />
<br />
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" <br />
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"><br />
<br />
If a browser has any troubles with the source code.<br />
<br />
I understand what you say about people not updating their browsers though. I work for an English ISP (not gonna mention them or i'll get alot of abuse problay
) and on the tech help desk where I work we still get customers with IE4 and they come with browsing problems all the time. On our registration CD we offer IE5 but they seem reluctant to upgrade. They are stuck in a comfortable rut.<!--content-->