Browser validation

Discussion in 'HTML' started by ato_zee@hotmail.com, Oct 11, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Are there any W3C validated browsers?

    So if the code and style sheet validate at W3C
    the it will display as intended.

    It all seems arse about face, you need compliant
    browsers, or even a compliant, browser before
    you consider code validation.
    , Oct 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Nico Schuyt Guest

    wrote:
    > Are there any W3C validated browsers?
    > So if the code and style sheet validate at W3C
    > the it will display as intended.
    > It all seems arse about face, you need compliant
    > browsers, or even a compliant, browser before
    > you consider code validation.


    Doesn't make sense to me. Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the builder has
    intended to.

    --
    Nico Schuyt
    http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/
    Nico Schuyt, Oct 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Els Guest

    Nico Schuyt wrote:

    > Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    > other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the builder has
    > intended to.


    Don't you think that this impossible task would be easier to fulfill
    if the builder would code his sites following the specs, instead of
    sending his best *intentions* along with his non-standard code?

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
    Els, Oct 11, 2006
    #3
  4. Nico Schuyt Guest

    Els wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >
    >> Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    >> other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the
    >> builder has intended to.


    > Don't you think that this impossible task would be easier to fulfill
    > if the builder would code his sites following the specs, instead of
    > sending his best *intentions* along with his non-standard code?


    No :) It's like the accessiblity problems: It's impossible to achieve that
    every webbuilder on earth will follow the specs, so it's much more practical
    to use browsers that make the best of it.

    --
    Nico Schuyt
    http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/
    Nico Schuyt, Oct 11, 2006
    #4
  5. Paul Watt Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote in message
    news:452ca86d$0$49889$...
    > Els wrote:
    >> Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >>
    >>> Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    >>> other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the
    >>> builder has intended to.

    >
    >> Don't you think that this impossible task would be easier to fulfill
    >> if the builder would code his sites following the specs, instead of
    >> sending his best *intentions* along with his non-standard code?

    >
    > No :) It's like the accessiblity problems: It's impossible to achieve
    > that every webbuilder on earth will follow the specs, so it's much more
    > practical to use browsers that make the best of it.
    >


    Give a chimp a stick......
    --
    Cheers

    Paul
    le singe est dans l'arbre
    http://www.paulwatt.info
    Paul Watt, Oct 11, 2006
    #5
  6. Els Guest

    Nico Schuyt wrote:

    > Els wrote:
    >> Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >>
    >>> Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    >>> other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the
    >>> builder has intended to.

    >
    >> Don't you think that this impossible task would be easier to fulfill
    >> if the builder would code his sites following the specs, instead of
    >> sending his best *intentions* along with his non-standard code?

    >
    > No :) It's like the accessiblity problems: It's impossible to achieve that
    > every webbuilder on earth will follow the specs, so it's much more practical
    > to use browsers that make the best of it.


    Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one set
    of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of different
    sets of rules say?

    Do you have any suggestions for the soccer rules too? Should the
    referee judge the game by the intentions of the players ("honest, I
    think the rules should allow for kicking the opponent in the shins, as
    it will surely stop him from preventing my team scoring a goal"), or
    should the players play by the rules?

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
    Els, Oct 11, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    On 11-Oct-2006, "Paul Watt" <> wrote:

    > >>> Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    > >>> other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the
    > >>> builder has intended to.


    So your code and css validate at W3C, yet each browser renders
    differently, IE can render the page different to Firefox,
    and Safari on OS X different again.
    So why doesn't valid code render the same on each browser?
    Quite clearly the browsers are not W3C compliant.
    So why doesn't W3C validate browsers?
    , Oct 11, 2006
    #7
  8. Nico Schuyt Guest

    Els wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >> Els wrote:
    >>> Nico Schuyt wrote:


    >>>> Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    >>>> other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the
    >>>> builder has intended to.


    >>> Don't you think that this impossible task would be easier to fulfill
    >>> if the builder would code his sites following the specs, instead of
    >>> sending his best *intentions* along with his non-standard code?


    >> No :) It's like the accessiblity problems: It's impossible to
    >> achieve that every webbuilder on earth will follow the specs, so
    >> it's much more practical to use browsers that make the best of it.


    > Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one set
    > of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of different
    > sets of rules say?


    The latter is easier than instruct all them webbuilders amd adjust existing
    sites.

    > Do you have any suggestions for the soccer rules too?


    I hate soccer :) But the comparison is wrong: every game is a new one. On
    internet there are millions of non- or no longer compliant sites.

    --
    Nico Schuyt
    http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/
    Nico Schuyt, Oct 11, 2006
    #8
  9. Andy Dingley Guest

    wrote:

    > Are there any W3C validated browsers?


    Amaya. Approximately, some time ago, and for somewhat stretched
    meanings of "validated".

    You might like to look up the ACID browser test suites and see what the
    current status of the pack is. It's not that important for a browser to
    be perfect, so long as it's fairly close and you know where it isn't.
    Andy Dingley, Oct 11, 2006
    #9
  10. Els Guest

    Nico Schuyt wrote:
    > Els wrote:
    >> Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >>> Els wrote:
    >>>> Nico Schuyt wrote:

    >
    >>>>> Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    >>>>> other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the
    >>>>> builder has intended to.
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't you think that this impossible task would be easier to fulfill
    >>>> if the builder would code his sites following the specs, instead of
    >>>> sending his best *intentions* along with his non-standard code?
    >>>
    >>> No :) It's like the accessiblity problems: It's impossible to
    >>> achieve that every webbuilder on earth will follow the specs, so
    >>> it's much more practical to use browsers that make the best of it.

    >>
    >> Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one set
    >> of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of different
    >> sets of rules say?

    >
    > The latter is easier than instruct all them webbuilders amd adjust existing
    > sites.


    What can I say? If you ever have clients who don't understand that,
    feel free to send them my way.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
    Els, Oct 11, 2006
    #10
  11. Nico Schuyt Guest

    Els wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >> Els wrote:


    >>> Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one set
    >>> of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of
    >>> different sets of rules say?


    >> The latter is easier than instruct all them webbuilders amd adjust
    >> existing sites.


    > What can I say? If you ever have clients who don't understand that,
    > feel free to send them my way.


    Els, forgive me my ignorance, but what clients do you mean? Neither the
    browsers nor the webbuilders are my clients.

    --
    Nico Schuyt
    http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/
    Nico Schuyt, Oct 11, 2006
    #11
  12. Els Guest

    Nico Schuyt wrote:

    > Els wrote:
    >> Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >>> Els wrote:

    >
    >>>> Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one set
    >>>> of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of
    >>>> different sets of rules say?

    >
    >>> The latter is easier than instruct all them webbuilders amd adjust
    >>> existing sites.

    >
    >> What can I say? If you ever have clients who don't understand that,
    >> feel free to send them my way.

    >
    > Els, forgive me my ignorance, but what clients do you mean? Neither the
    > browsers nor the webbuilders are my clients.


    Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
    a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
    as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
    b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
    mouse.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
    Els, Oct 11, 2006
    #12
  13. Nico Schuyt Guest

    Els wrote:
    > Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >
    >> Els wrote:
    >>> Nico Schuyt wrote:
    >>>> Els wrote:


    >>>>> Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one
    >>>>> set of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of
    >>>>> different sets of rules say?


    >>>> The latter is easier than instruct all them webbuilders amd adjust
    >>>> existing sites.


    >>> What can I say? If you ever have clients who don't understand that,
    >>> feel free to send them my way.


    >> Els, forgive me my ignorance, but what clients do you mean? Neither
    >> the browsers nor the webbuilders are my clients.


    > Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
    > a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
    > as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
    > b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
    > mouse.


    Ahh, I see :) But it's not that I deny the importance of validation and
    accessibility (I try to follow the specs concscientious), the discussion is
    about a practical approach of all existing non-compliant sites. A missing
    alt text for example should be replaced in a browser with alt=""; fixed
    fonts should be ignored (or the compromis in IE: fixed unless changed in
    accessibility options).
    BTW I stopped testing in IE5 and 5.5. In FF and Opera I only apply the
    latest version)

    --
    Nico Schuyt
    http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/
    Nico Schuyt, Oct 11, 2006
    #13
  14. Bergamot Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > So your code and css validate at W3C, yet each browser renders
    > differently, IE can render the page different to Firefox,
    > and Safari on OS X different again.


    What are you doing that gives such a result? Are you looking at
    pixel-precision, which is a futile goal, or you are attempting something
    too complex for your particular CSS skill level?

    Validation only means there are no syntax errors. It cannot detect logic
    errors, which is often the trouble with rendering issues, especially
    when the developer isn't very knowledgeable in CSS.

    IE aside, a carefully thought out design developed by someone competent
    in CSS should render comparably in modern graphical browsers. It should
    also degrade well in other browsing situations.

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Oct 11, 2006
    #14
  15. dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Els <> wrote:

    > Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
    > a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
    > as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
    > b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
    > mouse.


    I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
    sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
    most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
    not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
    website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
    lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
    push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
    the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
    like. I can tell you, Els, I am swelling with pride here to know
    this brave little band... oops I just fell off my chair, swelled
    too much to the right...

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 11, 2006
    #15
  16. Followup-to set: alt.html

    wrote :
    > Are there any W3C validated browsers?
    >
    > So if the code and style sheet validate at W3C
    > the it will display as intended.
    >
    > It all seems arse about face, you need compliant
    > browsers, or even a compliant, browser before
    > you consider code validation.


    Perfectly conformant browsers do not exist. They all have HTML 4.01
    bugs, CSS 2.1 bugs and DOM 2 bugs. But the best conformant ones are (in
    descendant order):

    Firefox 2.0
    Opera 9.02
    Safari 2.0.4
    Icab 3.03

    HTML 4 Conformance tests:
    http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/
    http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/results

    Web browser standards support summary
    http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php

    Followup-to set: alt.html

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 12, 2006
    #16
  17. wrote :
    > On 11-Oct-2006, "Paul Watt" <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
    >>>>> other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the
    >>>>> builder has intended to.

    >
    > So your code and css validate at W3C, yet each browser renders
    > differently, IE can render the page different to Firefox,
    > and Safari on OS X different again.
    > So why doesn't valid code render the same on each browser?


    For several reasons, valid markup code and valid CSS code may not render
    the same layout in each browsers:

    1- browsers have often different default css property values for some
    elements. Recently, there has been a movement done by browser
    manufacturers (Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla, Apple, etc.) to reduce the
    numbers of such occurences. E.g.: IE 7, Opera 9, Firefox 1+, Safari 2.x
    all have a default 8px margin on the body element... but this was not
    the case just 2 years ago.

    2- Browsers have bugs. Simple as that. The browsers that have less bugs
    are the ones who have established public feedback systems to report
    bugs. The longer they've done that, the more correct their
    implementations of specifications are.

    3- Valid code will have more/better chance to be correctly rendered (as
    intended) when the browsers are triggered to use "standards compliant
    rendering mode" (document.compatMode == "CSS1Compat"). The browsers
    conform more closely to the spec of web languages (HTML and CSS) when in
    standards compliant rendering mode.

    4- Valid code could still be very complex code, with a large and deep
    DOM tree. This is another phenomenon. Sometimes, new comers to CSS give
    a class to every element (or so) and they make the DOM tree very deep.
    Browsers have a tendency to produce different layout when the dom tree
    gets deep and large.

    Gérard
    --
    remove blah to email me
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard_Talbot?=, Oct 12, 2006
    #17
  18. Els Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Els <> wrote:
    >
    >> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
    >> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
    >> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
    >> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
    >> mouse.

    >
    > I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
    > sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
    > most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
    > not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
    > website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
    > lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
    > push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
    > the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
    > like.


    If that were true, I don't think I would get all those clients who
    want accessible websites. Most of them have never heard of alt.html
    :)

    Not that it's driven by the market either, but I do think the latest
    laws wrt accessibility may have something to do with it. Some people
    may be scared to run into problems with the law?
    http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=67257

    Of course this is about the USA, but somehow my British clients also
    want accessible websites these days.

    > I can tell you, Els, I am swelling with pride here to know
    > this brave little band... oops I just fell off my chair, swelled
    > too much to the right...


    <g>
    (vision of a Martian blowfish..)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
    Els, Oct 12, 2006
    #18
  19. Chaddy2222 Guest

    Els wrote:
    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Els <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
    > >> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
    > >> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
    > >> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
    > >> mouse.

    > >
    > > I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
    > > sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
    > > most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
    > > not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
    > > website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
    > > lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
    > > push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
    > > the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
    > > like.

    >
    > If that were true, I don't think I would get all those clients who
    > want accessible websites. Most of them have never heard of alt.html
    > :)
    >
    > Not that it's driven by the market either, but I do think the latest
    > laws wrt accessibility may have something to do with it. Some people
    > may be scared to run into problems with the law?
    > http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=67257
    >
    > Of course this is about the USA, but somehow my British clients also
    > want accessible websites these days.
    >

    Yes, the UK have the DDA (I think that's what it's called, and we have
    the DDA here in Aus as well.
    You only need to look at the Sydney Olimpics case for details regarding
    this.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
    Chaddy2222, Oct 12, 2006
    #19
  20. dorayme Guest

    In article <bnkfw8zy6pnw$.xhljjz2wkunp$>,
    Els <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Els <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
    > >> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
    > >> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
    > >> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
    > >> mouse.

    > >
    > > I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
    > > sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
    > > most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
    > > not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
    > > website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
    > > lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
    > > push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
    > > the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
    > > like.

    >
    > If that were true, I don't think I would get all those clients who
    > want accessible websites. Most of them have never heard of alt.html
    > :)
    >


    I have never heard anyone wanting a website actually talk about
    IE5 or the blind or the mouseless or the mouse-shys or PDA's or
    mobile phones without leading questions by me... I have made
    websites for people in organizations who have IT depts that have
    written specifications recommending or requiring accessibility
    criteria, true, but these may as well be double-dutch - sorry Els
    :) - to the particular hirer. And from the look of almost every
    other page at these organizations, no one seems to take a lot of
    notice of these standards however generally competent and
    generally useful these "non-assessible" pages are.

    But I work for people who appreciate these standards, who can be
    led to see they are good things. Just my experience I guess... So
    I was thinking that when most people hire people to make a
    website, it would be very few indeed who talked the talk.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 12, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Colin Mackay
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,678
    Colin Mackay
    Jun 25, 2003
  2. Libs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,485
  3. Colin Basterfield

    Web form validation vs object validation

    Colin Basterfield, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    423
    Tommy
    Nov 29, 2003
  4. Matt
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    4,074
    Chad Z. Hower aka Kudzu
    Jan 30, 2004
  5. Lucas Tam
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,095
    Lucas Tam
    Feb 26, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page