Hi Christian,
Actually I pointed to that article too and I did so not with regards
to it's accuracy but merely the spirit in which it was written. I
think you need to read it in context. First it was written in 2004
and from the comments it's clear that it is a reaction to various
confrontations with those that the non-standards folks see as the
standards police. I actually found it via a blog entry commenting on
the number of css reboot [1] sites that did not validate[2].
I wouldn't say I agree with the article but then nor can I say I
disagree. My take from it is ...validation is JUST a tool in the
process... a bit like washing your hands after you go to the toilet,
something you do but don't need to question why, however if asked you
have good reason to do so and are surprised when you see others not
doing the same.
One of the problems with judging "standards" using validation is...
to continue that toilet metaphor... a bit like swab testing hands
after using a public toilet. The person may well have washed their
own hands but then opened the same door as those who did not. Many of
those using content management systems, or are otherwise not in full
control of content addition will be all to aware of how easily their
sites are invalidated with an unencoded ampersand or such like.
Nick
[1] http://www.cssreboot.com/
[2] http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200606/
css_reboot_participants_far_from_standardsbased/
Ugh, let's all start posting links to innaccurate articles that only
serve to mislead people and give the finger to web standards and the
W3C... on the WSG list, no less.
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
