Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Is W3c validation woth the money?

Reply
Thread Tools

Is W3c validation woth the money?

 
 
Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
Hi,

I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
rules given by W3c.

But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
reject them if their site does not validate?
Should I expect the site created by them to validate?

Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?

My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
page validate.

So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?

Simon


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
Simon wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
> rules given by W3c.


No, not all validating sites are good ones. I bet I can make a really
crappy site, with lots of peek-a-boo bugs to annoy all the IE users,
and still have it validated.

> But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
> reject them if their site does not validate?
> Should I expect the site created by them to validate?


Can't speak for you, but I would.

> Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?


Depends on the type of error. Most errors are better avoided though.

> My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
> should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
> page validate.
>
> So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?


I reckon it should.
And if a designer can't make their dreamweaver code valid, they don't
know how to use the program correctly? There is of course a difference
between someone who allows certain 'errors' to exist, and someone who
simply doesn't /know/ how to make a validating site. Hasn't got
anything to do with dreamweaver afaik.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Fleetwood Mac - Need Your Love So Bad
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
"Simon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it
> follows the rules given by W3c.


If you think so, you do not know what validation is. For an
explanation, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html
(Validation does not imply that W3C rules are followed. Neither does
it, or following the rules, imply that the site is a good one. As a
trivial proof of the latter non sequitur, consider a site that consists
of a single HTML document that fully conforms to HTML specification and
has an empty body, say <body><div></div></body>.)

> But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I
> automatically reject them if their site does not validate?


If you are about to hire a technical editor, would you reject any
application that contains a spelling error?

> what about css, should it validate?


CSS is not an SGML or XML application, so "validation" is an
incorrect/misleading word in that context.

Surely the crucial questions are: Do you intend to require that _your_
pages validate? As a different question, do you intend to require that
they conform to W3C recommendations? Which of them? (HTML? Which one?
CSS? Which one? WAI?) Do you understand the consequences?

(And what makes you think validation costs money, as you suggest in the
Subject line but fail to explain or even mention in the message body?)

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
> "Simon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it
>> follows the rules given by W3c.

>
> If you think so, you do not know what validation is. For an
> explanation, see http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html


personally I prefer the details given by w3c themselves.
http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.htm

> (Validation does not imply that W3C rules are followed. Neither does
> it, or following the rules, imply that the site is a good one. As a
> trivial proof of the latter non sequitur, consider a site that consists
> of a single HTML document that fully conforms to HTML specification and
> has an empty body, say <body><div></div></body>.)


Of course it implies that rules are followed.
It might not look good, or even be useful, but the rules are followed.

> CSS is not an SGML or XML application, so "validation" is an
> incorrect/misleading word in that context.


Again , w3c seems to believe that is a validation. They even offer a tool to
achieve it.

>
> (And what makes you think validation costs money, as you suggest in the
> Subject line but fail to explain or even mention in the message body?)


What I was trying to imply is that a good, 'valid' page would cost more to
develop rather that one put together by a student with limited knowledge of
dreamweaver.
Is spending the extra money to validate really worth it.

Simon


 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
Simon wrote:

> What I was trying to imply is that a good, 'valid' page would cost more to
> develop rather that one put together by a student with limited knowledge of
> dreamweaver.
> Is spending the extra money to validate really worth it.


Yes. (imo of course)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Human League - Together in Electric Dreams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Simon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
>> I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
>> rules given by W3c.

>
> No, not all validating sites are good ones. I bet I can make a really
> crappy site, with lots of peek-a-boo bugs to annoy all the IE users,
> and still have it validated.


Sorry, I did not mean good as good to look at, but rather that it followed
the rules and was likely to work as expected on a well behaved browser.

>
>> Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?

>
> Depends on the type of error. Most errors are better avoided though.
>
>> My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
>> should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
>> page validate.
>>
>> So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?

>
> I reckon it should.
> And if a designer can't make their dreamweaver code valid, they don't
> know how to use the program correctly? There is of course a difference
> between someone who allows certain 'errors' to exist, and someone who
> simply doesn't /know/ how to make a validating site. Hasn't got
> anything to do with dreamweaver afaik.


I don't know dreamweaver myself, I just thought it was one of those editor
that was not very flexible.
Unless you edit the templates directly.

Simon


 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
Simon wrote:

> Sorry, I did not mean good as good to look at, but rather that it followed
> the rules and was likely to work as expected on a well behaved browser.


Unfortunately, the majority of visitors uses a not so well behaved
browser. Also, validating, following the rules, still doesn't mean a
good web site, even in Opera or Firefox.

>>> So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?

>>
>> I reckon it should.
>> And if a designer can't make their dreamweaver code valid, they don't
>> know how to use the program correctly? There is of course a difference
>> between someone who allows certain 'errors' to exist, and someone who
>> simply doesn't /know/ how to make a validating site. Hasn't got
>> anything to do with dreamweaver afaik.

>
> I don't know dreamweaver myself, I just thought it was one of those editor
> that was not very flexible.
> Unless you edit the templates directly.


I don't use Dreamweaver myself either, but I've been told Dreamweaver
has settings, which I think means it can be as flexible as any editor.
If the designer blames Dreamweaver's supposed inflexibility for lack
of validation, s/he shouldn't be using Dreamweaver.

Reminds me of myself when I was 6 years old, learning to write. I had
to write an 'n', and the second leg needed to have a nice round edge
at the bottom. I couldn't do it, the edge didn't want to be round. I
blamed the pen.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: David Bowie - Suffragette City
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
Simon wrote:

> I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
> rules given by W3c.
>
> But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
> reject them if their site does not validate?
> Should I expect the site created by them to validate?


Probably. A developer who is _incapable_ of creating a validating site
isn't worth hiring.

However, there are often good reasons why not every site in their
portfolio validates (most of mine don't, usually because some muppet
has ruined after I've left the project).

> Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?


Depends on the errors and whether the developer can give a satisfactory
justification for each one.

> My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
> should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
> page validate.


Define 'normal'. I've built lots of validating sites with DW.

> So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?


CSS should usually pass the "validator" on the W3C site (note that
technically it is not validation as validation has a specific technical
meaning when dealing with SGML/XML based languages and thus applies to
HTML but not CSS).
Again some exceptions may be allowed but they should be justified.

To answer your question. No validation is not worth the money - if
someone tries to charge more for a validating site than for a
non-validating one then they're a poor choice.

OTOH developers who produce validating code by default may well charge
more by default because they're more skilled and experienced.

Steve

 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas Weller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
Hi Simon,

> I know that a site that validates is a good site, because it follows the
> rules given by W3c.


well, you can include the "validates (x)html ..." on your site - that does
not mean, it's a good site!

> But I am about to employ a web designer/programmer should I automatically
> reject them if their site does not validate?
> Should I expect the site created by them to validate?


At least, there should be a validation process included. There may be
reasons why the site does not validate. We can start a lenghty debate on
this, but normally a site should validate (and should not be more expensive
either ...).

> Or is it safe to 'accept' a handful of errors?


Define "handful" ...

> My personal felling is, if a designer is selling their services then it
> should validate, but on the other hand I never saw a 'normal' dreamweiver
> page validate.


I have seen valid DW sites, lazy (incompetent) developers come up with very
"funny" excuses sometimes ...

> So what should I accept? what about css, should it validate?


See above. Final opinion: Yes, pages should validate, think about what all
the others said in this thread. Most common browsers (ie. IE) bend the
validation rules to a large extent, but you normally are on the safe side
when your site validates. Experienced developers even know on how to deal
with this behaviours of browsers on different platforms. Instead of putting
too much effort in W3C-validation, think about accessibility guidelines
like 508 or WAI.

HTH - best regards from Germany ...

--
Tom

"Ich mach mir die Welt, wie sie mir gefllt" - Pippi Langstrumpf,
Programmiererin?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jukka K. Korpela
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-14-2005
"Simon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> personally I prefer the details given by w3c themselves.
> http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.htm


Even if they are completely wrong? Your choice, of course.

> Of course it implies that rules are followed.


You can decide to remain ignorant, but even the W3C documents say,
though perhaps obscurely, that validation does _not_ imply conformance
to the HTML specification.

<a href="get a life"></a>

is valid, in a suitable context, as you can easily check; yet it
definitely violates the HTML specification, since "get a life"
does not comply with the URL syntax.

>> CSS is not an SGML or XML application, so "validation" is an
>> incorrect/misleading word in that context.

>
> Again , w3c seems to believe that is a validation. They even offer
> a tool to achieve it.


This is constant source of confusion, and you seem to wish to
contribute to the confusion.

> What I was trying to imply is that a good, 'valid' page would cost
> more to develop rather that one put together by a student with
> limited knowledge of dreamweaver.


Have you made some comparisons, or are you just guessing?

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html


 
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
Canon S3 IS woth the price? DznyNut@gmail.com Digital Photography 11 05-17-2006 07:57 AM
problem woth Kodak firmware upgrade quinte Digital Photography 13 12-14-2005 08:14 PM
How do I format my p.c woth a Windows 98 cd and a floppy disk? טל MCDST 2 12-04-2005 03:16 AM
QoS on Cisco 1721 woth ATM-interface Iskander Cisco 13 02-23-2005 10:03 PM
W3C Validator Icon and W3C Valdiator page Frank HTML 9 05-03-2004 09:32 AM



Advertisments