tee wrote:
Hi, I am just curious how many people in this list actually spend
extra time making a validation error free page for the sake of
validation when third party's code is embedded. Surely the above
example is an easy fix, but how about embedding google calendar or
other scripts?
I rarely ever spend extra time on it, but I do like to save time on
debugging later by checking and cleaning up my own and third party's
code early - and often. If something is going to break anyway, it better
break early.
I use the "one click - 1/10 of a second processing in HTML Tidy"
shortcut all the time, which means I actually have problems creating or
leaving non-valid parts in a page even when wanting to - for
testing-purposes and alike.
Embedded scripts are automatically commented out by "my" Tidy - thus
ignored by the validator, so no problems there.
Google code and similar sometimes means "my" Tidy performs
doctype-downgrading, which isn't much of a problem either, IMO. If the
source-code is only good for "Transitional", then "Transitional" it is.
If I want a "pass" on "Strict" when Tidy says it is only "Transitional",
I'll have to perform the extra tidying and testing myself to make sure
it works, before calling on Tidy again to check and confirm.
Sometimes I even validate my work, but not often since "my" Tidy got it
right in 99.9% of all cases anyway. The validator does a better job at
informing me about what's wrong than Tidy does though, so if I'm more
confused than usual the validator is a "nice to have".
The cleaning-up process I'm very much depending on in my daily work,
seems to only work properly with the original, customized, Tidy-version
integrated in my old editor though, which is why I haven't changed basic
editing-tool for my own work for years. I'll probably have to customize
it, and "my" Tidy, for (X)HTML 5 one day, so it doesn't trip on new
elements and attributes.
I normally only use my much newer and more user-friendly editors when
I'm looking at other people's pages - like yours :-) - since I've found
their newer Tidy-versions (if they have one) and integration of it near
useless. They seem to have become too lenient, and many of the
integrated Tidy's are almost "set in stone" and can't be properly
customized through the interface no matter what.
I am not implying validation isn't important nor should be ignored.
But as we in this list know it's not something that matters much as
far as accessible site concerns. Do people today actually still
trying to make the page validate by way of proper xhtml markup that
may create problem in IE and then write another script to hack the
IE?
Validation _isn't_ important at all in itself, but making sure the
markup and whatever else is in there is actually in accordance with
specs before one starts to curse various browsers for their failures,
sure makes those curses more valid :-)
After all: most cross-browser problems are caused by invalid and/or
nonsensical markup and CSS, so quickly knowing in which direction one
should direct those curses saves time and frustration.
Can't say I've seen IE fail because of validity, but of course one in
rare cases has to add something (still valid) to the markup in order to
avoid an IE bug or two. Nearly all IE bugs can be fixed without touching
the markup though - if the source-code is valid and logical, and, as
mentioned, embedded scripts don't create validity-problems.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
