SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 126 to 145 of 145
  1. #126
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Do not worry abot validation. As long as your website looks ok in IE, opera and firefox, you are ok. A lot of high authority websites do not pas validation.

  2. #127
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The most important thing about a website is making money---monetization!!

  3. #128
    SitePoint Evangelist Ed Seedhouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    592
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Take the money and run, eh?

    A few banks have been doing that lately it seems. Worked out well, hasn't it?
    Ed Seedhouse

  4. #129
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,875
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Seedhouse View Post
    Take the money and run, eh?

    A few banks have been doing that lately it seems. Worked out well, hasn't it?
    No, the banks are not the ones who have been doing that - the people they have been lending to are the ones who have taken the banks money and done a runner. It is that so many bank loans have gone bad is the cause of the current problems with the banking industry and left banks with no funds to repay the other banks they had in turn borrowed from.

    Maybe you should just repay all those billions you borrowed from the banks and end the crisis.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  5. #130
    SitePoint Evangelist Ed Seedhouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Victoria, B.C. Canada
    Posts
    592
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    No, the banks are not the ones who have been doing that - the people they have been lending to are the ones who have taken the banks money and done a runner. It is that so many bank loans have gone bad is the cause of the current problems with the banking industry and left banks with no funds to repay the other banks they had in turn borrowed from.
    And the banks don't loan money with the idea of making money on the loan?
    Rather they thought they'd make a big profit by lending to marginal borrowers, right now, and the future could take care of itself. Which it is indeed now doing.
    Ed Seedhouse

  6. #131
    SitePoint Wizard drhowarddrfine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by olena99 View Post
    Do not worry abot validation. As long as your website looks ok in IE, opera and firefox, you are ok. A lot of high authority websites do not pas validation.
    Sign of an amateur

  7. #132
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,875
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by drhowarddrfine View Post
    Sign of an amateur
    And someone who doesn't read what has already been written in a thread before they post to it. Why do people insist on posting comments to threads that: 1. don't have any supporting argument to back up their viewpoint and 2. have already been well and truly proven to be false with the arguments already put forward by others in the thread?
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  8. #133
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AutisticCuckoo View Post
    It means the markup is of poor quality.
    It's basically the same as if a written document has spelling errors or grammar errors in it. Readers may still understand it, but there is always a risk for confusion and misunderstanding. And the more errors you have, the greater the risk.

    Other than that, it depends very much what sort of invalid markup you have. An invalid attribute is unlikely to cause any problems, whereas a missing end tag could cause the document to render very badly and even become unusable.


    So? All it says is that Adobe has poor quality control for its website. It doesn't mean it's a good thing to have invalid markup.


    Yes. By definition.


    It depends on what sort of invalid markup you use (see above). 'Good' hacks (an oxymoron, I know) shouldn't cause invalid markup. CSS hacks for IE should preferably be kept in separate style sheets included in conditional comments.


    Perhaps if it's a temporary document on my local computer, meant to be used only by myself.
    Thanks well put.. This thread has helped me out as well.

  9. #134
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    44
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    And someone who doesn't read what has already been written in a thread before they post to it. Why do people insist on posting comments to threads that: 1. don't have any supporting argument to back up their viewpoint and 2. have already been well and truly proven to be false with the arguments already put forward by others in the thread?
    There are spammers amongst us. This is one of the most popular forums
    on the web, those spammers will surely try to get their links in.

    See what they are linking to ?
    Last edited by Blue Star Ent.; Nov 23, 2008 at 15:47. Reason: add some oomph

  10. #135
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    HTML validation is completely unnecessary to the optimization process. The only thing the SEO needs to be sure of is that there are no problems in the code structure that would prevent the search engine spider from parsing the code correctly.

    Most browsers are very forgiving of bad code. If the browser can interpret the intention (for lack of a better word) of the programmer then it will likely display the page as intended. But search engine spiders are often not as forgiving and simply not closing a tag can cause the spider to read the code structure completely different from how the page is displayed in the browser.

  11. #136
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Roger, everything you say is true-- and I dunno who here validates for SEO reasons. We validate becuz riting liek dis is purfekly onderstandbble, but a sine of pore kwalaty. Browzrz onderstand cuz their bilt too but we dont yuz dat as a exqoos. Also bad code tends to be overabundance of code (though that's no hard and fast rule or anything) and as far as SEO goes, it's better to have as little code around the content as reasonably possible.

    The other problem, as already stated several pages now, is that while browsers do try to figure out what to do with errors, they're not required to deal with it in the same way-- so while maybe IE will get a mangled piece of code right, FF may not, or vice versa or whatever. Just like, there's less chance of misunderstanding me when me Engrish wery better is.

    For some of us, validation is a must, and for others, there are more important things. And the world continues rotating. : )

  12. #137
    SitePoint Evangelist jonbey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    508
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iconic_creator View Post
    When do you ignore validation?
    All the time. If the page renders on all browsers as intended, and is quick to load, and user friendly, then I see that there is no real problem. Most of my errors are generally caused by third part js codes anyhow. But a functioning site is more important than a valid one.
    My site: My Extension

  13. #138
    Unobtrusively zen silver trophybronze trophy
    paul_wilkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    14,729
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Unfortunately it doesn't mean it will be perfect in every browser. It's easily possible to make grand screw-ups while staying within grammatical confines of the specifications.

    An example of this in a more comprehensible setting relates to english spelling.

    I have a spelling checker.
    It came with my pea sea.
    It plane lee marks four my revue
    Miss steaks aye can knot sea.

    Eye ran this poem threw it,
    Your sure reel glad two no.
    Its vary polished in it's weigh.
    My checker tolled me sew.

    It carries on at http://www.greaterthings.com/Humor/Spelling_Chequer.htm but as you can see, just because the spelling is correct, just because the page validates, doesn't mean that it is proper and correct.
    Programming Group Advisor
    Reference: JavaScript, Quirksmode Validate: HTML Validation, JSLint
    Car is to Carpet as Java is to JavaScript

  14. #139
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Paul++ very cute, and explains it so well. Too bad it doesn't fit in a sig.

  15. #140
    Unobtrusively zen silver trophybronze trophy
    paul_wilkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    14,729
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Thank you. I must clarify that the above isn't my justification for not performing validation. It's just to highlight that validation (like spell checking your documents) is a part of the overall process that's involved.
    Programming Group Advisor
    Reference: JavaScript, Quirksmode Validate: HTML Validation, JSLint
    Car is to Carpet as Java is to JavaScript

  16. #141
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jonbey View Post
    All the time. If the page renders on all browsers as intended, and is quick to load, and user friendly, then I see that there is no real problem.
    Doesn't it take a lot of time to check the rendering in the thousands of browsers out there? And having to do it again each time a new version of a browser is released!

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulAdman View Post
    check it with w3validation if your site get validation it means it will perfect all the browser.
    It will be perfect in all browsers with 100% standards support, which is … none of them. Every browser has its bugs and quirks, although some have more than others.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  17. #142
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,875
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    At least if your code is valid it means that any errors in the way it displays are browser errors rather than page content errors. With page content errors your page will likely not display correctly in hundreds of different browsers while with browser errors it will only not display properly in the browsers that have those particular errors.

    By both validating your content AND checking it in the more popular browsers you can ensure that it will only display incorrectly in minor browsers that have errors in the browser. If you only test in the major browsers (without using valid code) then you have no guarantee that it will display correctly in any of the thousands of browsers you didn't test in.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  18. #143
    Unobtrusively zen silver trophybronze trophy
    paul_wilkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    14,729
    Mentioned
    104 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Something that I would like to see is a validator that is able to point out issues that different browsers will have. Surely there's a resource that can automate checking for browser compatibility with your code. And if there isn't, there's definitely a market out there for one.
    Programming Group Advisor
    Reference: JavaScript, Quirksmode Validate: HTML Validation, JSLint
    Car is to Carpet as Java is to JavaScript

  19. #144
    SitePoint Author silver trophybronze trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ankh-Morpork
    Posts
    12,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pmw57 View Post
    Something that I would like to see is a validator that is able to point out issues that different browsers will have.
    Dreamweaver does this ...
    I wouldn't trust its utterances any further than I could throw the installation CD, though.
    Birnam wood is come to Dunsinane

  20. #145
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    A validator which was an online Wiki or something... constantly updated and maybe linked to Bugzilla reports for various rendering engines... would be neat. As the Buzilla gets updated (a bug fixed) the wiki would also get updated with a bot like Wikipedia gets photos from Flickr with a bot.


Tags for this Thread

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
  •