Re: Controlled Non-Validation

>>Although the examples given and the assumption that a major corporation
>>would necessarily be aware and care about validating is erroneous, the
>>major point of the argument still stands.
>Huh?  The fact remains that major corporations don't care, even though they
>should.  That's my point.
Just how do you know they dont care?  Are you just assuming?  

>>Lack of validation through ignorance can not be considered the same as
>>using code that doesn't validate with a full understanding of the
>>ramifications of doing so. While controlled non-validation may well not be
>>a "valid" term, it is most certianly a valid concept. 
>And I didn't consider it as that.  No, not once.
Yes and at one point the concept of a round earth was not accepted either.
I really think it is time that this language fully evolve into what it is
being used for.  If soooo many sites, designers, companies or whoever are
trying to use it as  a stylistic language why cant it be evolved into that?
 Again I have to ask you to show me a site that is designed without regard
to aesthetics.  Why isnt controlled non-validation a valid concept?   Is it
a concept? yes.  Is it being used? yes.  Is it being used by large sites
with gross amounts of traffic? yes.  So?

>>If one does not understand the difference between non-valid code created
>>through ignorance and non-valid code created through knowledge, one is
>>destined to be a perpetual victim of the former.
>Yeah...  so?...  That's what I said.  Hmmm...


phil.

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA