Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: very very sad: most browsers are broken :(

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: very very sad: most browsers are broken :(

 
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-20-2004
In article <WhTgc.30335$(E-Mail Removed)>,
clvrmnky <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 17/04/2004 1:06 PM, Thomas Reed wrote:
>
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce Grubb
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Since many of the errors reported by the validator are stupid things
> >>>like missing ALT tags on invisible spacer images, which don't need to
> >>>be displayed in plain text browsers anyway, I'm not particularly
> >>>concerned.
> >>
> >>HTML is NOT a layout format so those "invisible spacer images" should not
> >>be there in the first place.

> >
> >
> > Dude, c'mon. Accept reality. HTML has evolved way beyond what it was
> > designed to be, and it will *never* be stuffed back into the box that
> > academics would like it to be in. To say that spacer images don't
> > belong is like saying that 80% or more of the web shouldn't be there.
> >

> While I agree with the sentiment, this is no excuse for poor design of
> new pages. Spacer images are a stupid hack that can easily be replaced
> with valid HTML and CSS selectors. They are a sure sign that the web
> designer's kung-fu is weak.


Or like VPenman are so freaking ignorant that it is unbelievable. They let
program generate HTML for them and never bother to even see if it is even
HTML 2.0 spec complient.

> Almost all browsers have several bugwards-compatible behaviour; they can
> render a given page several different ways, all depending on a number of
> criteria (this is partially what that DOCTYPE specifier is so useful
> for). When a browser runs out of these tricks or ends up chasing it's
> tail because the DOM tree is an utter ****-up, sometimes sites break.


Or the author is Java happy.

> While spacer images and missing tag attributes should not necessarily
> break any well-designed browser, I can't help but feel that this kind of
> design suggests a general poor attitude toward web design. These
> easily-ignored errors may be hiding much worse problems.


I fully agree with this. In fact if more people stuck to the secps there
would be a lot less problems with web pages in general. Contrary to what
many authors believe the Web Design Group <http://www.htmlhelp.com/> an
HMTL 4.01 complient pages does not have to boring.

> Validation is a good starting point. Starting from a known, good
> position is always good when solving any problem; eventually pages are
> going to render in some interesting way that requires investigation.
> Instead of thrashing around hacking HTML and CSS to fix the problem,
> it's nice to be able to work from a somewhat known place. This is
> especially so when "fixing" in this context can mean "fixing for browser
> X version y, and unfixing for browser Y version x."
>
> If one is going to design a page, even for fun, I can't help but feel
> that it's a good idea to at least /know/ the rules, even if you are
> going to break them.


Personally I have no good reason to write invalid HTML. It only promotes
the writers of browsers t put into more browser unique junk in. This may
be part of the reason XHTML has not taken off - unlike HTML it is very
unforgiving of formating idiocy.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mabden
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2004
> > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
Grubb
> > > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Since many of the errors reported by the validator are stupid

things
> > >>>like missing ALT tags on invisible spacer images, which don't

need to
> > >>>be displayed in plain text browsers anyway, I'm not particularly
> > >>>concerned.


You, Sir or Madam, are a Sight Snob!

Images that are not pertinent to the content of the page should have
alt="" to help people with disabilities who use screen readers. The
standard is to always have an ALT tag, but to never put anything in
images that are strictly spacers or meaningless to the content of the
page.

Also, tables should have summary tags. Do the validators catch that?

See http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?...=Content&ID=11

--
Mabden


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gregory Weston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-22-2004
In article <yMEhc.39558$(E-Mail Removed)> ,
"Mabden" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce

> Grubb
> > > > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>Since many of the errors reported by the validator are stupid

> things
> > > >>>like missing ALT tags on invisible spacer images, which don't

> need to
> > > >>>be displayed in plain text browsers anyway, I'm not particularly
> > > >>>concerned.

>
> You, Sir or Madam, are a Sight Snob!
>
> Images that are not pertinent to the content of the page should have
> alt="" to help people with disabilities who use screen readers. The
> standard is to always have an ALT tag, but to never put anything in
> images that are strictly spacers or meaningless to the content of the
> page.
>
> Also, tables should have summary tags. Do the validators catch that?


It's not required, so something calling itself a validator of HTML isn't
required to flag it. A validator _might_ recommend it, if it's of a
prescriptive bent.

G

--
Standard output is like your butt. Everyone has one. When using a bathroom,
they all default to going into a toilet. However, a person can redirect his
"standard output" to somewhere else, if he so chooses. - Jeremy Nixon
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis? El Kabong HTML 23 05-13-2007 08:55 PM
Two Browsers work! Two browsers won't load. Internet game service won't load jimmie Computer Support 1 02-26-2006 08:36 AM
ms_positioning grid style - will this work OK on most browsers? Dot net work ASP .Net 1 11-29-2004 03:38 AM
Re: very very sad: most browsers are broken :( Bruce Grubb HTML 35 04-23-2004 11:56 AM
Horizontal Menu for most browsers? ={ Advocated }= HTML 15 09-11-2003 07:26 PM



Advertisments