Why Validation is Important

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Adrienne Boswell, Oct 28, 2009.

  1. 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/Recipes/Anna-Nannis-Ragu-alla-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, Oct 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Adrienne Boswell

    basilisk Guest

    "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/Recipes/Anna-Nannis-Ragu-alla-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, Oct 28, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Oct 28, 4:09 pm, Adrienne Boswell <> 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/Recipes/Anna-Nannis-Ragu-alla-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, Oct 28, 2009
    #3
  4. Adrienne Boswell

    dorayme Guest

    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, Oct 28, 2009
    #4
  5. On Oct 28, 5:34 pm, dorayme <> 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, Oct 28, 2009
    #5
  6. Adrienne Boswell

    C A Upsdell Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > On Oct 28, 5:34 pm, dorayme <> 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, Oct 29, 2009
    #6
  7. Adrienne Boswell

    dorayme Guest

    In article <hcamsm$8sq$-september.org>,
    C A Upsdell <> wrote:

    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > > On Oct 28, 5:34 pm, dorayme <> 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, Oct 29, 2009
    #7
    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. Alan Franklin
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,495
    Dario
    Feb 2, 2004
  2. William Tasso
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    747
    William Tasso
    Aug 22, 2003
  3. bjg
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    1,169
    Barry Pearson
    Feb 14, 2004
  4. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    921
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  5. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,071
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page