Does anyone pay attention to standards?

[Toby A Inkster]

I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.)

I don't see how sticking to standards[1] impacts on presentation. e.g.
Flash can be used on standards-compliant pages.

Of course, this depends on which standards you follow. e.g. HTML 4.01
would allow you to embed Flash. HTML 2.0 would not.

 

[Mark Tranchant]

I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.) I think it
takes away from these people to accommodate others.

You're reinforcing the myth that presentation and standards-compliance are
mutually exclusive. Table-based layouts and Flash sites can be made
standards-compliant with no detriment on appearance.

This group, as a whole, tends to encourage CSS styling, semantic markup and
standards-compliance - but that doesn't mean that standards-compliance
automatically drags the other two with it.

If the site is an ecommerce site where the owner NEEDS to make money
from the site, then by all means, follow standards, stay away from css
that is not rendered the same in all browsers, don't use flash or
javascript for anything that is needed.

Javascript (ECMA-Script) is a standard. Flash is a proprietary standard.
(X)HTML allows for the embedding of both of these within the standards.

All other cases must be evaluated individually based on what the owner
wants to present, and how he/she wants to present it.

Yep - then present it like that whilst complying with the HTML (and other)
specs.

The web is too big and has way too many uses for a set of standards to
accommodate all of its uses.

What is "the web"? It is a network of interlinked HTML pages with other
embedded technologies. There are standards that cover all of these.

A perfect example is Webex, or Webentations. Are they web pages? Yep,
do they (could they) validate, or even be accessible (beyond alt tags)
to everyone? Nope.

Of course they could validate. I'm sure alternative content could be made
available if required, but accessibility is also independent of
standards-compliance.

Are they a valid use of the web? Sure are, and probably one of the
fastest growing sectors of web applications right now.

Fine - just code them properly!

 

[Whitecrest]

I don't see how it makes it better for everyone. ESPECIALLY for those
that like presentation. (Both developers and visitors.)

I don't see how sticking to standards[1] impacts on presentation. e.g.
Flash can be used on standards-compliant pages.

CSS is used for presentation, but the same code looks different. A good
example is the 3 column example from a few weeks ago. (I forget the
thread) It was supposed to be 3 columns, but in IE it was 3 rows. I
commented it was three rows, and someone replied, but you could still
read the content even though it was in a row not a column. Well while
that is well and goo. The non standard page that showed the proper
columns rather than rows is bound to draw more clients (or at the very
least KEEP them)

Of course, this depends on which standards you follow. e.g. HTML 4.01
would allow you to embed Flash. HTML 2.0 would not.

Thanks for the other example. The Mozilla code needs the "embed" to
properly handle Flash (activeX) But using <embed> throws a validation
error. Yes someone posted a work around and that is fine, if you want
to use a "work around" (And it doesn't work if you are a user of flash
not a builder of flash as the work around requires you to build a
wrapper flash object.)

Again, I stress, for most instances following the standards is a good
thing. But there are a lot of exceptions.

 

[Whitecrest]

You're reinforcing the myth that presentation and standards-compliance are
mutually exclusive. Table-based layouts and Flash sites can be made
standards-compliant with no detriment on appearance.

Sometimes they ARE mutually exclusive. Perfect example is the Column
Row example. Posted a few weeks ago.

In Mozilla based browser the STANDARDS example showed text in 3 columns.
In IE it was 3 Rows. Please tell me how displaying rows rather than
columns is not related to presentation

Javascript (ECMA-Script) is a standard. Flash is a proprietary standard
(X)HTML allows for the embedding of both of these within the standards.

No it doesn't. You have to use the <embed> tag (which doesn't exist) to
get mozilla based browsers to display it (active X or in this case the
plug-in) correctly. (netscape 7 now does it correctly)

Yep - then present it like that whilst complying with the HTML (and other)
specs.

You can't. Because of browser bugs.

Of course they could validate.

But it would not work or look right in all browsers if you follow the
standards.

Fine - just code them properly!

Fine make the standards work on all browsers. Hmm they don't. Until the
standards work on all browsers, the EXACT same way, The standards are
useless as a standards. It makes no difference if the problem is with
the standard or with the browser, bottom line is IF you code to the
standards today, and DON'T cater to specific browsers, then your pages
have the potential of looking differently in different browsers.

Like it or not, it is a reality.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Sometimes they ARE mutually exclusive. Perfect example is the Column
Row example. Posted a few weeks ago.

So you are suggesting that it's impossible to code a three column layout
that works in IE and validates?

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Thanks for the other example. The Mozilla code needs the "embed" to
properly handle Flash (activeX)

No you don't. <object> will load Flash just fine -- in IE 4+, Mozilla,
Netscape 6+ and Opera 5+ (maybe 4+?).

 

[Whitecrest]

So you are suggesting that it's impossible to code a three column layout
that works in IE and validates?

Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.

 

[Whitecrest]

No you don't. <object> will load Flash just fine -- in IE 4+, Mozilla,
Netscape 6+ and Opera 5+ (maybe 4+?).

Without work arounds? Nope.

 

[Karl Groves]

Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.

Again, as usual, your moronic drivel revolves around "either-or"
propositions.
Either it is standards compliant OR it breaks in browsers?
How about standards compliant AND not breaking in browsers? Nah, that'd be
too much for your little brain to absorb.

-Karl

 

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

/Whitecrest/:

Without work arounds? Nope.

What about:

<object data="yourfile.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
width="320" height="240">
<param name="movie" value="yourfile.swf">
Nah, no Flash.
</object>

?

 

[Whitecrest]

Again, as usual, your moronic drivel revolves around "either-or"
propositions.
Either it is standards compliant OR it breaks in browsers?
How about standards compliant AND not breaking in browsers? Nah, that'd be
too much for your little brain to absorb.

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.

 

[Karl Groves]

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.

Again, here you go continuing your false dilemma by implying that standards
compliance limits the presentation.
Perhaps you're just not creative enough and knowledgeable enough to do
either properly?

-Karl

 

[Eric Jarvis]

Well then you are limiting what you can do arn't you? Some times
presentation matters, but your little brain can't understand that.

nonsense...working to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium

attempting to impose techniques and processes from one medium on another
medium is not only limiting what you can do, it's likely to lead to
inferior results

you don't control the end result of a web design...so you've got to
operate in terms of the standards as the first stage of design...it's the
only way you can get a reasonable level of predictability that will be in
any way future proof...that doesn't mean not tweaking to deal with browser
bugs...but it's just plain dumb to start by dealing with current browser
bugs as the first stage of the process...you can't expect a print/games/TV
design process to work in a different medium

 

[Whitecrest]

What about:
<object data="yourfile.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
width="320" height="240">
<param name="movie" value="yourfile.swf">
Nah, no Flash.
</object>

See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/ as to why that
doesn't work.

Now they offer a solution, but if you are a user of flash not a builder,
then the solution doesn't work. Also you have to have a container flash
object and all this other horse shit.

The embed tag is easy, and it works all the time with less code. It
just doesn't follow the standards. But all the browsers handle it
correctly.

Gee hard decision here. less work, works on everyone's machine, and no
container flash. So I am not standards compliant, it works everywhere.

And yea, I will have to go back and re-code someday. But since some of
you still code for nn4, I am not really worried about that. Not to
mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
I have bigger problems that just standards.

 

[Whitecrest]

Again, here you go continuing your false dilemma by implying that standards
compliance limits the presentation.

It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use. (I think we agree on that point.)

Now, if CSS offers (say) 100 presentation features (yes there are more
but this if to keep the math easy for you), but I can not use 30 of them
because of browser compliance, I loose the presentation features these
offered? (I can't use them because they would display differently on
different browsers.)

So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.

 

[Whitecrest]

nonsense...working to the medium is not limiting what you can do...it's
working to get the best out of the medium

Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.
Some think that is true, others think you need to pay attention you the
people that actually use your site and see what they want.

You do realize that some people actually seek out flash sites, and multi
media presentations and games, and movies on the web right? And at the
same time, others seek out sites they can see on the phone browser. The
two types of sites can live in perfect harmony you know.

Following standards, and trying to make your site viewable to everyone
in the world, makes the first type of site impossible to build.

If you disagree, then show me any fortune 500 site the site that is
standards compliant.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Without work arounds? Nope.

<object data="myfile.swf" height="100" width="140"></object>

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that if you stick to 100%
standards compliance, and disregard what browsers do, then you run the
risk of disaster.

Where did I suggest that you disregard what browsers do?

 

[Eric Jarvis]

It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use. (I think we agree on that point.)

yes and no...you see nobody sane would want the site to look the same on
different browsers...not only is it a pointless goal it is also nigh on
impossible

Now, if CSS offers (say) 100 presentation features (yes there are more
but this if to keep the math easy for you), but I can not use 30 of them
because of browser compliance, I loose the presentation features these
offered? (I can't use them because they would display differently on
different browsers.)

So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.

wrong

because you are insisting that "working" equates to "looks identical"
something I don't believe that you can justify...certainly when I've asked
people who make that claim to justify it in the past the responses have
been incoherent rambling, abuse or no response at all

 

[Eric Jarvis]

Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.
Some think that is true, others think you need to pay attention you the
people that actually use your site and see what they want.

You do realize that some people actually seek out flash sites, and multi
media presentations and games, and movies on the web right? And at the
same time, others seek out sites they can see on the phone browser. The
two types of sites can live in perfect harmony you know.

Following standards, and trying to make your site viewable to everyone
in the world, makes the first type of site impossible to build.

no it doesn't...and I've used Flash, video clips, and sound (not games as
yet, though I don't rule it out)...there are good ways to use all of
them...all it takes is a basic understanding of the medium...something you
don't seem yet to have gained

If you disagree, then show me any fortune 500 site the site that is
standards compliant.

I don't see how that would prove a case...it seems to be on a par with the
rest of your "logic"