Re: W3C HTML validator

"Validator" debaters:

Come on you guys...

I don't wish to offend anyone but sometimes I just bust out
laughing at some of these discussions.

A Validator--whether W3C or any other one--is nothing more than a
database coupled to a set of standards used to compare. W3C has
several such standards so first off--which of these "standards"
is THE "standard"??

Second: The "browsers" do not follow these so called
standards--they SET them. The features offered to/imposed on - us
by Microsoft and Netscape in the last few years are now the basis
for many of these so called "standards". The only way the
standards will ever really become standard is when Netscape,
Microsoft and AOL quit fighting with each other and start
cooperating. I suspect it would be somewhat impractical to hold
ones breath until that happens.

In the meantime, I shall confine myself to the "validators"
offered by Bobby,  RSAC and the database in FrontPage. Sometimes
I include their logos, sometimes not. An image is an image is an
image and they all take loading times. Bobby does catch my missed
alt tags. RSAC makes me take a hard look at content and FP is far
better at remembering browser compatibility than my old and
tattered memory. For a hand coder, W3C is a handy database but
nothing more. It is NOT a religion !!

Other than perhaps RSAC or Bobby, do you really think any of the
surfers out there give a rats whether our sites validate or not?
They just want the darn thing to work and those few that are
still using obsolete browsers are well aware that they are
missing stuff. After all, does ABC, NBC, FOX or CBS put a lot of
worry into those few viewers still using a B&W TV set?? Does TV
Guide anguish over their content to please non-cable viewers?

Best wishes and turn on the sprinklers ...
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
http://www.temercraft.com


>From: Darryle <Darkrose.bds(at)worldnet.att.net>
>>Excellent Point Sue!!  I have been searched for sites with this
logo
>and of
>>the 19 sites I looked at, NONE passed validation. The link to
W3C
>worked on
>>all but one. So why would anyone want to put this logo on their
site
>>knowing the site won't validate???
>
>I am not answering for myself, for I DO NOT display the
validated logo
>if the page itself truly does not validate, but ... going by
some
>response posts on one of the list's of hwg, I recall seeing
suggestions
>of putting scripts in comments so it will pass validation and
then
>taking them out of comments. I do not understand this theory at
all.
>
>>Can someone direct me to a site with the logo that does
validate, I
>would
>>like to look at one.
>
>A personal site of mine. Warning: graphic intense
><http://pages.prodigy.net/stanleysupport/toc.htm>
>
>--
>Cindy K. Stanley
>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA