> 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 > >deteriorates when stuff is added / removed / modified. It > >has nothing > > to do with 'having no clue what I'm doing' and > >everything with having more inportant things on my mind > >than making > > sure everything complies 'to the letter of the law'.
Maybe, but if a site that is XHTML served as text/html were actually served correctly as application-type/xhtml+xml, any validation errors would cause the site to STOP working entirely. So this kind of "can't win them all" attitude is okay when we are talking about html 4, but with xhtml, it's not acceptable. When I see an html 4 site with validation errors, I don't mind at all, but when I see an xhtml (or wannabe xhtml) site with validation errors, I think that's a problem. I know it sounds elitist, but in the xhtml world, validation is the law. This is why on my latest project, a wordpress template for a friend of mine, I am designing the template to be html 4. Even all those wordpress-generated <img /> tags are valid in html 4, and I don't have to lose sleep over my friend's mistakes when she uses html in her posts, because I know the site will still work. As much as I like seeing a decent adoption of xhtml by so many websites, I still think many of them should roll back to html 4, if they aren't going to bother to fix their errors. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
