| gabriel rosenkoetter on Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:20:05 -0400 |
|
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 11:26:44PM -0400, Paul wrote: > I agree with sticking to some standards. That said, what *is* valid > HTML? The W3 consortium's definition. > I test my code against w3c's 4.01 transitional validator. That > means my code is valid according to their recommendations, but what make > their recommendations a standard? (That is only a question, though it > sounds like a statement.) They're a standards body defined, I think, by the IETF, though w3.org is so slow right now that I can't give you a reference for that. > I've been thinking about how Internet Explorer has a few extensions that > other browsers don't support. Is that bad? The answer that I came up > with is that it is not bad as long as it doesn't cause a failure when > using another browser. If the extensions are worth anything they might > become part of the standard. Until then we could test the code against > a known set of recommendations and/or do our own testing with different > browsers to see what actually works and what doesn't work. The problem with extensions is that they make form more important than content. If you're going to use the extension, you obviously think it's good. Soon, you begin to think it's necessary in order to view the site "correctly". Then you start in with browser detects. In the process, the presentation has taken precedence over the material being presented. You will never convince me that that's okay. If I'm the only one who holds that opinion, that's fine, but I've got a feeling I'm not. (That's a generalized you, not a personal you.) Please, let's not even start down this slippery slope with a for-the-community web site like PLUG's. > Once or twice I had to use some code that the validator didn't like to > make something work, and it worked in a variety of browsers. Please, don't do this on the PLUG website. HTML is not a programming language, it is a markup language. It's one thing to play fancy tricks if you're jodi.org, it's quite another if you're www.phillylinux.org. Our site exists to convey textual information. It does not exist to look pretty. If it can do both things, fine. But the information really must take precedence; it's the site's reason for existence. -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgp56DSR0CHsc.pgp
|
|