One more note: my definition of works, extends beyond working in a particular browser. For example, usability is in my opinion, is a thousand times more important than valid HTML. -Nick
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Nick Jenkin <[email protected]> wrote: > I certainly don't disagree with you on that front, valid by default is > certainly preferred. The heart of my point was more, the goal > shouldn't be valid HTML - it should be a site that works. A few > validation errors around the place is not the end of the world. My > issue is mainly with people who spend more time checking the W3C > validator than making websites. > > FYI I am not a web developer, but have the pleasure of dealing with them. > -Nick > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Keri Henare > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Validation isn't like IE bug fixing. If you spend more than 10 minutes >> fixing validation errors then you're doing it wrong. People who ignore >> validation don't learn the rules and therefore create lots more validation >> errors. I'm a big believer in validation but I almost never use the >> validator anymore because I almost never write invalid HTML. Learn the >> rules and then you won't keep breaking them. >> >> A valid site is a site than conforms to the specification. What's the point >> in writing HTML if you aren't going to bother to write valid HTML? >> Actually, if it's not valid by the specification then it's not HTML is it, >> because the spec tells you what is HTML and you've written something else. >> >> If a client is told that HTML validation would "waste hours of time" then >> they should go and find somebody who knows what they're doing. No client >> should pay for a developer to go back and fix their own bugs. >> >> The single most important reason for staying valid is that it helps you to >> find bugs in markup. When a layout breaks the first thing that I do is >> validate the page, because if the bug is markup related it'll stick out like >> a sore thumb. >> >> Kind regards, >> Keri Henare >> --------------------------------------------------- >> [e] [email protected] >> [w] kerihenare.com >> [m] (+64) 021 874 552 >> >> PLEASE NOTE: I check my email 3 times per day and will respond at these >> intervals. For anything urgent please ring me. >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> On 17/03/2010, at 3:17 PM, Nick Jenkin wrote: >> >>> Users don't care if your html is valid (except maybe, developers, but >>> they do not represent the general population). If you want to waste >>> hours of time making a site valid, then go for it - but I'd be a >>> pretty pissed off customer if I was paying for it, and while gaining >>> absolutely zero ROI. I'd rather you spend that time *actually testing* >>> the site on different web browsers, after-all as I'm sure you are all >>> aware, a valid site != a working site. A shipped product is more >>> valuable than a perfect one. >>> -Nick >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Bruce Clement >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I've been using this quote in my signature file for a while. Today I >>>> think I'll headline with it. >>>> >>>> "Before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good >>>> appreciation of everything that already exists in this field." Mikhail >>>> Kalashnikov >>>> >>>> This forum is populated by experienced php developers who use php and >>>> W3C standards to generate real-world websites. They exchange useful >>>> information and help each other out. Even if you think you know >>>> better, standards are important, and just saying that a standards >>>> validator is "Stupid" only shows how much you have to learn. The >>>> reason standards are important here is because a standards compliant >>>> website has a greater chance of working with as yet unreleased browser >>>> versions than a non-compliant one has. >>>> >>>> You got one reply to your posting about your site giving what I >>>> consider to be pointing out a basic and easy to fix problem which you >>>> replied 3 times to with increasing levels of petulance. >>>> >>>> According to my records this thread is the second time you've posted >>>> on this forum. The other being a one liner "2 hrs to research find out >>>> how, and implement" comment on another thread. Giving you constructive >>>> criticism on your site as Boyd did is hardly tall poppy. In this list, >>>> you are not a tall poppy, people like Jochen, Harvey, and Aaron >>>> (amongst others) are and they don't rant and rave when people point >>>> out mistakes they make. >>>> >>>> I'm a database & back-end developer, not a website designer, so >>>> there's no point complaining about my sites, but I am currently the >>>> customer for having a few dozen of my domain names developed into >>>> small websites. The people I'm working with on this project are mature >>>> adults who accept a task and deliver to spec (or they stop getting >>>> commissions). If one of them told me they wouldn't use a dictionary >>>> because it was stupid they would get no further work. I expect basic >>>> things like spelling and grammar from content writers, W3C compliance >>>> from web developers and laces in shoes; if I don't get them I spend my >>>> money elsewhere. >>>> >>>> Last I was looking to hire a web developer I looked critically at >>>> their website on the basis that their own website is their advert and >>>> should represent their best possible work. This wasn't just a surface >>>> examination, I carefully examined their html as well. If it wasn't of >>>> the required quality I simply moved along. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:46 AM, vincenz2004 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> p.s. My site renders 4 errors on your checksum validator (which I dont >>>>> use cause its stupid). >>>>> and facebook.com gets 40 errors... >>>>> >>>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.facebook.com >>>>> >>>>> Why dont you write to facebook and teach them how to write valid code >>>>> too? >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 15, 12:23 pm, Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> cutting edge is great, but so is getting the basics right, how about >>>>>> valid html for a start >>>>>> >>>>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediacre... >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 15, 11:49 am, vincenz2004 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>>> We would like to offer contracted web programming services through our >>>>>>> company if anyone is looking for a developer. >>>>>> >>>>>>> We specialize in Social Networking scripting but practically >>>>>>> everything else. >>>>>> >>>>>>> We like cutting edge projects, so if you have one let us know ;) >>>>>> >>>>>>> Feel free to visit our site. >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.mediacreations.co.nz >>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>> >>>>>>> Vince >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug >>>>> To post, send email to [email protected] >>>>> To unsubscribe, send email to >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Bruce Clement >>>> >>>> Home: http://www.clement.co.nz/ >>>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/Bruce_Clement >>>> Google Buzz: http://www.google.com/profiles/aotearoanz >>>> >>>> "Before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good >>>> appreciation of everything that already exists in this field." Mikhail >>>> Kalashnikov >>>> >>>> -- >>>> NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug >>>> To post, send email to [email protected] >>>> To unsubscribe, send email to >>>> [email protected] >>> >>> -- >>> NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug >>> To post, send email to [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe, send email to >>> [email protected] >> >> -- >> NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug >> To post, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe, send email to >> [email protected] > -- NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]
