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

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Bruce Grubb, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <WhTgc.30335$>,
    clvrmnky <> wrote:

    > On 17/04/2004 1:06 PM, Thomas Reed wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, Bruce Grubb
    > > <> 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.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce Grubb

    Mabden Guest

    > > > In article <>, Bruce
    Grubb
    > > > <> 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?FuseAction=Content&ID=11

    --
    Mabden
     
    Mabden, Apr 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <yMEhc.39558$>,
    "Mabden" <> wrote:

    > > > > In article <>, Bruce

    > Grubb
    > > > > <> 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
     
    Gregory Weston, Apr 22, 2004
    #3
    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. Wipkip

    A very sad ? about frames

    Wipkip, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    363
  2. Bruce Grubb
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,016
    Karl Groves
    Apr 23, 2004
  3. JustBoo

    Wow, This Is So Sad...

    JustBoo, Jul 22, 2009, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    555
    JustBoo
    Jul 27, 2009
  4. Zac Burns

    Why is python so sad?

    Zac Burns, Oct 14, 2009, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    265
    Zac Burns
    Oct 14, 2009
  5. Mike Hunter

    Sad experience with redirecting to /dev/null

    Mike Hunter, Apr 2, 2004, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    170
    Joe Smith
    Apr 4, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page