Forum Moderators: open
Here you will find easy, painless techniques and ideas to improve your Web site quality and make your Web site valid. This document is intended for HTML users, developers working on Web applications, and Web masters.
A more honest and helpful approach on a page which is (according to the introduction) aimed at designers, not browser manufacturers, would be:"There are many advantages to validation, such as:
You know, I think that is a good suggestion. So, maybe we should forward it on to the author (Karl Dubost) and make him aware of this discussion? Would you be okay with that?
don't stop, do nothing, and ask "who moved my cheese?" ;)
As I see it, the problem is browsers with bugs and other misfeatures. Bugs we will always have. Misfeatures are due to lots of things, such as browser manufacturers wanting to get their browsers out as quickly as possible and having to guess what the W3C's specs are going to be.
Browsers are then introduced which include all sorts of errors for all sorts of reasons. Web designers are then sometimes faced with a choice:
1. Religiously follow the W3C specs resulting in pages that may break in some of the most popular browsers;
2. Totally ignore W3C specs in an effort to make pages that don't break in any of the most popular browsers.
Which course of action is a dotcom most likely to follow, and why?
The assumption behind the phrase "part of the solution or part of the problem" (which is as fatuous as Bush's famous "You're either with us or with the terrorists") is that if we web designers insist on using fully standards-compliant code, everyone will magically download and install a fully standards-compliant browser.
Since when has this even been a remote possibility? How many non-technically people do you know are going to say, "Oh, the browser that comes pre-installed on my PC isn't standards-compliant, so I'd better download the latest Mozilla browser"?
