On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:43:31 +1000, Kevin Futter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thoroughly agree with David here. Web standards are a means to an end and > not an end in themselves. The way I see it, the point of web standards is to > a) separate form from content and both from behaviour; b) make all content > equally accessible to the widest possible audience; c) provide a > predictable, reliable model that we can all work with.
I am at risk of starting holly war here again, but: please, don't confuse web standards and best practices. a) b) c) are best practices and can be achieved with of without valid code. Web standard (for (X)HTML) is: particular W3C (IETF ones are out of question now days, I guess) specification and accompanying DTD. Your code either complies to those rules or not. If it does not comply by accident - fix it. If it does not comply by intention - remove <!DOCTYPE, cause your code is not standards compliant. It is either valid or not. There is no such thing as 'almost valid' like there is no such thing "a little bit pregnant'. Just like software - it does compile, or it doesn't. And just like software - you may well write piece of code which does compile, but doesn't run, so you can have (X)HTML what validates, but does not follow best practices [ a), b) c) ]. Only web gives us a luxury of having invalid pages that still work. Use with care. > trying to use 'web standards techniques' for embedding Flash content fails > at least two of these aims, and isn't worth pursuing just so that some > software program will 'validate' your code. Yes. If you choose this approach, you may use it. Only if code is not valid by intention - remove <!DOCTYPE, cause it is a lie. See above. I am not obsessed with standards or something. I know "real life" perfectly well - I am coding for web for 8 years now. But honestly, I do not understand, why people try to complicate things. Is it so difficult to grasp - either your code follows defined rules, so it is valid and is that <!DOCTYPE claims it to be, or it does not. If not - there is no such doctype for "almost standard" code, so don't use any. Browsers may have 'almost standard' mode, w3c has not. Or is it something so attractive in document type declaration that people try to keep it even if code is not valid and is not valid on purpose? If your conscious decision is to use invalid (or should I put it mildly - not compliant?) code fine... but what is that erroneous document type declaration doing here? Ditch it. And yes, validation beauty is only skin deep. I will strongly prefer clean (content separated from presentation, markup is semantic, all is accessible) code with no <!DOCTYPE to valid but bloated, table-ridden page suffering from classitis and divitis. Point is - use whatever works for you and your audience, but do not lie. > If you've done everything else > pretty close to right, then the only validation you really need is that your > intended audience sees everything they need to see. After all, Flash content > isn't that accessible to begin with - insisting on embedding it with > strictly valid code is a bit like putting handles on an elephant to make it > easier to carry across a swollen river ... Using Flash you can still provide alternative content for those who cannot see it. Why not to use this possibility? Regards, Rimantas ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
