On Oct 18, 2008, at 8:07 PM, Brett Patterson wrote:
I understand what you are saying to a degree. But what YOU don't
understand is that by validating a page, you are more ensured that
your page will work for everyone. So it is an easy fix, but it has
nothing to do with embedding Google calendar or other scripts. It is
just a link. Whereas embedding means actually having the calendar
visible in the page. A COMPLETELY different story. If you don't
validate then you cannot know any mistakes that may make users
frustrated and/or leave the site. Also, others, such as those who
are using the site through a screen reader may not be able to. That
is the first thing any halfway decent coder/designer/developer
knows. And I am not implying that you are no good, but you really
need to rethink about validation.
Brett, I also understand what you were saying to a degree, however I
don't think you really get what I was curious about how other deal
with this.
I used to be so proud displaying 'xhtml/css validated' label on every
site I built, I stopped doing that maybe two years or a year ago, but
by not doing that, I was not going backward, and stopped caring
whether my codes validate or not.
Today, if it's an easy fix, even a bit difficult ones, I always spend
extra time fixing the validation errors.
I think I am always in progress as far as web standard concerns, I
have learned the good and better practice from this list, and I apply
them to my work, and I rarely need to worry whether a page I code from
scratch will break due to the missing closing tag or extra div placing
in a wrong place. But my pragmatic side and the common sense taught me
better in term of web standards and accessibility I think, I deliver
every project to my clients with professional pride and clear
conscious that I have done the best I could possibly done in terms of
the accessibility and cleaner code concerned, though they may not be
pixel perfect in IE 6, but I know in full knowledge that none of my
clients will come back to me saying something is broken when they
started adding content or their customers told them some area on their
the site don't work and cause by validation errors. There is also a
provision that whoever updates the site, and who misses a closing tag
or inserting an improper tag, the page won't break.
Every site I built, is using xhtml 1.0 strict doctype (not interested
to enter the html strict vs xhtml strict argument). So if it's just a
matter of 'ampersand' in the link from a third party script, I will
fix it not for the sake of validation, but to make myself feel better
that 'I do care'. But if I am embedding, say, an iframe, I am not
gonna to replace the iframe for the sake of validation, then google
for a JS script (since I can't write one myself) to make IE handles
object tag so that I can showoff: see, another xhtm/css validated site
I just did. Well, I admit I used to use validated tag to make flash
validate when I first started learning web standards, but over the
years, I have learned far more important things about web standards
and accessibility that I can afford to not care a few validations
errors caused by iframe or &.
As far as writing another IE script, is it that hard for you to do?
To help users that may view your site, view it trouble free?
Huh?
I googled this:
http://www.sharealayout.com/tutorials/replacing-the-IFRAME-by-the-OBJECT-in-XHTML-1.1/157/4/
If you think it worths all the trouble to make IE the inferior browser
behaves like a Grade A ones, perhaps you are missing the substance of
web standards?
Just my humble 2 cents.
tee
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
