onger validates ... sigh ...
Pam
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rowan -
> RMW Web Publishing
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:32 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a
Those coders that are knowingly writing invalid code (be it a "trade off" or
sheer laziness) should be honest with themselves and stop trying to kid their
viewers. Not only are you (like Nic said) weakening the value of the
button for
everyone but you will likely be found out (and to me - that w
Thanks for the great responses so far :)
Marco wrote:
> Most sites that bear these buttons were actually compliant when they were
launched / created.
> However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when stuff
is added / removed
> / modified.
That's a fair enough comment. Thin
kvnmcwebn wrote:
How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Not difficult at all in most cases - unless you need to 'target' links.
- Take a Transitional document and put a Strict DTD on top. HTML4 or
XHTML 1.0.
- Send it through the validator.
- Remove any non-strict pre
kvnmcwebn wrote:
How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Is it a whole other ballgame or just a matter of dotting your t's and
crossing your i's?
HTML 4 strict is really just dotting and crossing. for XHTML 1.0
transitional to XHTML 1.0 strict you should really know
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: [WSG] Claiming compliance when a site doesn'
Patrick wrote:
"Any new developments should
really be done in a strict doctype, IMHO."
How difficult is it to jump to strict from transitional doctypes?
Is it a whole other ballgame or just a matter of dotting your t's and
crossing your i's?
-best
kvnmwebn
*
On 1/5/06, Leslie Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would
> be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as
> application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done
> has been rather confusing,
Leslie Riggs wrote:
I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional;
> and what about those XHTML Transitional
DTDs?
Not going to start the debate on whether one should use HTML 4 strict or
XHTML 1.0 strict / 1.1, but as far as transitional doctypes go, i'd say
that they shoul
At 10:24 PM 1/4/2006, Nic wrote:
You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance. You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim! Their css is a mess.
...
This upsets me on several levels.
...
Nic,
I'd like to know about a site that is XHTML 1.0 Transitional; what would
be the purpose in that, and would you say that should be served as
application-type/xhtml+xml, or text/html? A lot of the reading I've done
has been rather confusing, particularly when I go and see sites served
as XHTML 1.
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:42 +0100
> Marco van Hylckama Vlieg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm one of these site owners :)
> >
> > I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these
> >buttons were actually compliant when they were launched /
> >created.
> > However in the real world this so
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:07:42 +0100
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm one of these site owners :)
I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these
buttons were actually compliant when they were launched /
created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly
dete
Hi Nic.
Good Question,
but I think that people just dont know, Maybe a wordlist at
webstandardsgroup.org, and other webplaces alike would help, a wordlist that
in a very short manner explains the most important terms in a short and
mayby allegoric manner (sure a ship with a enginge of chewing gu
Marco van Hylckama Vlieg wrote:
...
In 1 or 2 months I'll be launching a redesign and the site will
probably comply again. After that the same thing will probably happen
again. Such is life. It doesn't have much to do with incompetence or
lack of respect for standards. It's a focus thing re
I'm one of these site owners :)
I can explain it though. Most sites that bear these buttons were
actually compliant when they were launched / created.
However in the real world this sometimes slightly deteriorates when
stuff is added / removed / modified. It has nothing
to do with 'having no cl
Nic wrote:
You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance. You
do a quick check, ...
Gosh. Don't do that!!!
Just think of all the hard work those poor "web designers" had to do
just to get hold of those buttons and create those links. Might have
taken them several minutes ;-)
I'd be interested to know what this group's take is on a practice I seem to
find more and more.
You go to a site, and it proudly claims xhtml/css/wai compliance. You do a
quick check, and discover that the code wouldn't pass xhtml 1.0 compliance,
let alone the 1.1 strict they claim! Their css is
18 matches
Mail list logo
