HTML5 allows for the use of XML syntax while still serving as text/html. 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 18/03/2010, at 2:00 PM, Keith Allpress wrote: > OK I am gonna give the dead horse a last kick then. Sorry. My own feeling is > that programming tends to attract a particular kind of personality mix, what > it comes down to, if you watch "Big Bang Theory", would you rather have > Sheldon or Leonard program your website? Sheldon will worship at the altar > of standards, but his site will suck. > The last time I heard standards proselytized with such fervor, was when the > EDP manager was railing against the insubordinate behavior of our laboratory > managers, who had the audacity to order personal computers that were not > conformant to the IBM PC standard. As he mumbled incantations and cast > spells, we caught catch-phrases like "future compatibility with the 4341 > mainframe". Well we all know what happened to him. I can still remember the > crane swinging the big iron out of the fourth floor windows one sunny > afternoon in June. Future compatibility is pie in the sky. If things get > broke later you can fix them later, just like you fix them today. And rest > assured they will get broke, regardless of any ante bets you want to lay on > the standards table. The purpose of standards is to share markets, not to > "create excellence". Just bear in mind that if you validate your code > against xhtml, and serve it as text/html, then you are hacking the browser. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Kent Parker > Sent: Thursday, 18 March 2010 9:11 a.m. > To: NZ PHP Users Group > Subject: [phpug] Re: web programming and development services or > consultation > > Heh, that's all very well, Richard, but you tell that to Bill Gates > and the lads at Microsoft. What's the point of 100% html validation > when the main player doesn't follow the standards? Surely html > validation is just icing on the cake which might be compulsory for > those people whose charge out rate is greater than $100 but for the > rest of us is just another tool to get a site to be as good as it can > be. > > The last time I validated a site the errors were for using a number to > start an id name for a tag, and failure to meet other similar minor > bureaucratic rules like that. None of these kinds of things are ever > going to cause a site to break in the future any more than IE6, 7, 8 > and 9 will cause a site to break now. > > Having said that, I think the original poster needs to get down from > his 'tall poppy' and learn some marketing skills. I think that was > probably initially more offensive than the validation errors on his > site which are minor. > > > > On Mar 18, 1:19 am, Richard Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> So, I was going to respond to this conversation earlier, but something >> didn't really feel right about the way it was all going so I left it. >> >> Aaron, Harvey and others present a compelling argument. We know that >> every project is constrained by a limited set of resources, and it is >> the ability to juggle those resources to match business needs that is >> part of what makes a good professional programmer. In this way, >> arguments about limited ROI and simply having more important things to >> do dominate the discussion and lead to people thinking HTML validation >> is a nice-to-have that doesn't really matter. >> >> What finally popped up in my mind - inconveniently moments before I >> was going to bed, as usual - was that we're simply aiming too low. >> >> "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a > habit." >> >> The risk we run, when we regularly aim for merely Good, is that we >> become someone who cannot ever deliver Great. This applies to >> everything, not just HTML validation or even programming. A >> fundamental aspect of greatness is attention to detail. The difference >> between the house designed by a good architect, and the one done by a >> great architect, is not in the size or the shape or how pretty it >> looks. It's in the myriad of different tiny ways it helps the people >> who live in it achieve their goals. >> >> For a web application, HTML validation is part of that. Precise, well >> formed HTML is easier to maintain, easier to debug and easier to use >> for numerous situations from screen readers to screen scrapers. Every >> app should have perfect HTML validation as a goal. It should almost >> never be the highest priority (maybe if you're doing w3c.org or >> something), but it should be there in the task list because without >> it, and without comprehensive unit tests and lint checking and code >> documentation and every other little element, it can never be great. >> >> The real world imposes limits on us, a number of these tasks, and >> others, may never be realised in a given project, but if you start day >> one of the project saying "Reality sucks, lets aim low" then you've >> already sold yourself - and your client - short. You'll never deliver >> a great project that way. >> >> The next time you start a project, don't compromise on the vision and >> don't forget the little details. Make sure you put the priorities >> where they should be - this is not an excuse to mess up delivering the >> value the business needs - but add the tasks in anyway, even if >> they're at the bottom of the list. >> >> Every project you do should be your best project yet. Every project >> you do should exceed your own expectations. When you put these tasks >> in your task list you are saying "I'll get there, I'm so good at this >> that I will get to the point where nothing would make this project >> better than having 100% valid HTML everywhere". >> >> The world will never have enough great programmers. We need you. Don't >> sell yourself short. >> >> Regards, >> Richard. > > -- > NZ PHP Users Group: http://groups.google.com/group/nzphpug > To post, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe, send email to > [email protected] > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2751 - Release Date: 03/17/10 > 08:33:00 > > -- > 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]
