Why Validation is Important

We've all seen messages about Google or other big sites not validating, so
if they don't validate, why should I?

Here's a good example:
[http://www.saveur.com/article/Recipe...lla-Bolognese]

There are 65 CSS errors, and 266 markup errors.

Open the URL in Opera version 10.

Opera 10 now passes the Acid3 test - and I suppose because it is more
standards compliant that it was in version 9, it really mucks it up badly.

I know that Opera is not the most popular browser in the world, but, here
is a perfect example of a browser mucking something up badly when markup is
bad.

Moral of the story: validate, fix, validate again.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Adrienne Boswell

"Adrienne Boswell" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB253097854Earbpenyahoocom@188.40.43.213. ..
> We've all seen messages about Google or other big sites not validating, so
> if they don't validate, why should I?
>
> Here's a good example:
> [http://www.saveur.com/article/Recipe...lla-Bolognese]
>
> There are 65 CSS errors, and 266 markup errors.
>
> Open the URL in Opera version 10.
>
> Opera 10 now passes the Acid3 test - and I suppose because it is more
> standards compliant that it was in version 9, it really mucks it up badly.
>
> I know that Opera is not the most popular browser in the world, but, here
> is a perfect example of a browser mucking something up badly when markup
> is
> bad.
>
> Moral of the story: validate, fix, validate again.
>
It's a great learning tool as well, you can bet that if the author of that
page went through and corrected the errors, he/she would know a
lot more about css and html.

basilisk

basilisk

On Oct 28, 4:09*pm, Adrienne Boswell <arb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We've all seen messages about Google or other big sites not validating, so
> if they don't validate, why should I?
>
> Here's a good example:
> [http://www.saveur.com/article/Recipe...lla-Bolognese]
>
> There are 65 CSS errors, and 266 markup errors.
>
> Open the URL in Opera version 10.
>
> Opera 10 now passes the Acid3 test - and I suppose because it is more
> standards compliant that it was in version 9, it really mucks it up badly..
>
> I know that Opera is not the most popular browser in the world, but, here
> is a perfect example of a browser mucking something up badly when markup is
> bad.
>
> Moral of the story: validate, fix, validate again.
>
> --
> Adrienne Boswell at Home
> Arbpen Web Site Design Serviceshttp://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
> Please respond to the group so others can share

I understand that validation should make sense.
But is it really possible to say what is correct or not?
Or is a wrong style in one browser not wrong css in general?
Is it possible to solve a specific css layout in any browser by
correct css so you will get no errors after validation?

Jan C. Faerber

In article <Xns9CB253097854Earbpenyahoocom@188.40.43.213>,
Adrienne Boswell <> wrote:

> Moral of the story: validate, fix, validate again.

I would think so too. But the authors of the 99.9% of the authors of the
websites I see day in and day out sure don't seem to be bothered by it.
And yes, their sites have ugly faults and they seem hardly aware of
them.

It is not just the mere validation, it is more the discipline of doing
it that has the real benefits because it forces a more intimate
acquaintance with the mark up and CSS and brings the author close to the
horror, a first step before the recoil.

--
dorayme

dorayme

On Oct 28, 5:34*pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>But the authors of the 99.9% of the authors of the
> websites I see day in and day out sure don't seem to be bothered by it.

today? how about ever?

> And yes, their sites have ugly faults and they seem hardly aware of
> them.

they and the overwhelming majority of their visitors are not aware of
the errors.

> It is not just the mere validation, it is more the discipline of doing
> it that has the real benefits because it forces a more intimate
> acquaintance with the mark up and CSS and brings the author close to the
> horror, a first step before the recoil.

With so many large sites on CMS's with their own gui interfaces
knowing the code is becoming meaningless to the content providers.
For example, Siemens' website is run off a customized version of
Microsofts CMS. For them, it is more cost efficient for them to use
the CMS and produce pages that a few people that can not see (for what
ever reason they are also very Flash heavy), than it is to take the
time to code each page.

Not condoning it, just pointing out the reality of running a large
frequently changing corporate website.

Travis Newbury

Travis Newbury wrote:
> On Oct 28, 5:34 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> But the authors of the 99.9% of the authors of the
>> websites I see day in and day out sure don't seem to be bothered by it.
>
> today? how about ever?
>
>> And yes, their sites have ugly faults and they seem hardly aware of
>> them.
>
> they and the overwhelming majority of their visitors are not aware of
> the errors.
>
>> It is not just the mere validation, it is more the discipline of doing
>> it that has the real benefits because it forces a more intimate
>> acquaintance with the mark up and CSS and brings the author close to the
>> horror, a first step before the recoil.
>
> With so many large sites on CMS's with their own gui interfaces
> knowing the code is becoming meaningless to the content providers.
> For example, Siemens' website is run off a customized version of
> Microsofts CMS. For them, it is more cost efficient for them to use
> the CMS and produce pages that a few people that can not see (for what
> ever reason they are also very Flash heavy), than it is to take the
> time to code each page.

Software creating web pages *could* create valid web pages. If the
software does not, that is the fault of the software's creator.

That a Microsoft product would create invalid code is hardly surprising:
remember FrontPage?

I do not doubt the benefits of a CMS: but the fact that a CMS is
useful, even though the code it emits is broken, does not mean than
broken code is unimportant; it just means that the CMS software should
be improved.

I remember, some time ago, that a software tool created by SAP generated
code which FF did not render as expected, due to errors in the code
generated. It took a long time for SAP to update their tool to create
better code, and during that time a lot of SAP customers were really
annoyed with SAP's failure to create a trustworthy tool. Anyone using a
CMS which creates invalid code is trusting that the code will work with
future browsers, and that trust is risky.

C A Upsdell

In article <hcamsm$8sq$>,
C A Upsdell <> wrote:

> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 5:34 pm, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> But the authors of the 99.9% of the authors of the
> >> websites I see day in and day out sure don't seem to be bothered by it.

> >> And yes, their sites have ugly faults and they seem hardly aware of
> >> them.
> >
> > they and the overwhelming majority of their visitors are not aware of
> > the errors.
> >

I doubt this, a fair few of their numbers would be happier and less
quietly frustrated, if the faults were not there.

> >> It is not just the mere validation, it is more the discipline of doing
> >> it that has the real benefits because it forces a more intimate
> >> acquaintance with the mark up and CSS and brings the author close to the
> >> horror, a first step before the recoil.
> >
> > With so many large sites on CMS's with their own gui interfaces
> > knowing the code is becoming meaningless to the content providers.
> > For example, Siemens' website is run off a customized version of
> > Microsofts CMS. For them, it is more cost efficient for them to use
> > the CMS and produce pages that a few people that can not see (for what
> > ever reason they are also very Flash heavy), than it is to take the
> > time to code each page.
>
> Software creating web pages *could* create valid web pages. If the
> software does not, that is the fault of the software's creator.
>
Completely correct.

> That a Microsoft product would create invalid code is hardly surprising:
> remember FrontPage?
>
> I do not doubt the benefits of a CMS: but the fact that a CMS is
> useful, even though the code it emits is broken, does not mean than
> broken code is unimportant; it just means that the CMS software should
> be improved.
>
And again.

--
dorayme

dorayme