SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    "Think of Netscape as syntax checking tool"?!!!

    From SitePoint.com's 4/24/02 "Tip of the Day":

    "When working with complex page layouts using nested tables, it's very easy to forget to close a <TABLE> tag with a matching </TABLE> tag now and then. While Internet Explorer can usually guess where missing tags belong, Netscape is more strict, to the point where it will usually display a completely blank page when a </TABLE> tag is missing.

    "The moral of the story is to always check your page designs in Netscape. Not only will this ensure that your layout will work with more browsers, but it'll help you quickly spot little mistakes in your code. Think of Netscape as syntax checking tool."


    Netscape as a "syntax checking tool"?!!! Uhh... no, that's what the W3C is for: http://validator.w3.org/

    Code for standards, not broken browsers. Ensuring your pages degrade so they are viewable in non-standards compliant browsers is one thing, relying on them to "check" your syntax is just plain bad advice...

  2. #2
    Gone!
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Witty Location Parody
    Posts
    3,889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: "Think of Netscape as syntax checking tool"?!!!

    Firstly, I dont think there is anything wrong in suggesting you test your pages in netscape...you SHOULD do that anyway and who relies on the validator solely?

    Originally posted by spiraltc

    Code for standards, not broken browsers. Ensuring your pages degrade so they are viewable in non-standards compliant browsers is one thing, relying on them to "check" your syntax is just plain bad advice...
    Broken browsers? As the tip said, netscape is just strict, not broken, and with Netscape being very standards compliant anyway you seem to contradict yourself in saying the Netscape testing tip is invalid.

    W3C 'tells' you your code is valid, testing in Netscape 'ensures' it displays as it should in that browser.

    The tip is pointing out that NS will show you any not closed table tags, not saying its the best way to check your code.

    Just my 2 cents,

    Glen

  3. #3
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    clarification...

    Netscape 4 is NOT standards compliant ("broken") ... Netscape 6 is (not "broken"). Restating my argument- by all means make sure your pages "work" in all the various browsers, but don't rely on a browser to check your "syntax"- use the W3C's validators.

    2 more cents. . .

  4. #4
    Gone!
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Witty Location Parody
    Posts
    3,889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: clarification...



    Well valid point but you didnt mention a NS version and....

    Originally posted by spiraltc
    Restating my argument- by all means make sure your pages "work" in all the various browsers, but don't rely on a browser to check your "syntax"- use the W3C's validators.
    .....the tip didnt say rely on NS a code checker, it simply pointed out that it is capable bringing to light little mistakes, in essence, "think" of it as "a" syntax checking tool. (I emphasise THINK and A") so IMO there isnt really an argument to restate. Its just a tip, pointing out somethings capabilty, I for one wouldnt have thought of that.

    Total so far 6 cents

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do not quite see the relevance of this arguement. Using Netscape 4.x to test pages is a good idea; it was never stated that one should soley rely on it, as Glen said. It is simply a tip, and a well-founded one at that. I personally use Netscape 4.x to validate my pages as well as the W3C validator. Stop trying to argue useless topics.

    -Colin
    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Netscape as "syntax checker"

    "Stop trying to argue useless topics". We all posted didn't we?

    Look folks, the point I was trying to make is, like all silly and obscure points of discussion, one of semantics.

    Does your project require the sites' pages to be viewable in NN4 in all of their graphical presentation and glory? By all means- validate your pages by checking them in NN4. But there is a (small, hair-splitting) difference between making sure your page looks acceptable in a particular browser and "checking syntax"- which implies ensuring your code adhere's to some sort of transcedent proper form and/or set of standards (youch, that was verbose.)

    Pursuing this useless topic further... There are plenty of HTML "errors" (things that DON'T conform to any standard HTML doctype) that are handled by NN4 just fine. . . So a page with such errors would validate for viewing in NN4, but it's "syntax" would be incorrect. This argument would be more powerful if I could recall specific examples, but my brain is a bit tired this late in the day.

    Sheesh, so much for resting my brain in between projects by visiting this site. Thanks to both of you guys for responding to my "troll" (i.e., the fishing technique whereby one drifts bait in search of opportunistic feeders.)

    Cheers to both of you,

    spiraltc


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •