Re: professionalism and wysiwyg

At 05:42 p.m. 10/09/98 -0400, Michelle L. Kinsey-Clinton wrote:
>At 01:13 PM 10/9/98 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>Validation doesn't make your projects look bad.
>>Coding to the HTML standards in no way decreases your ability to
>>produce lovely, interactive, high-tech, cutting edge stuff.
>>This is a myth.
>It's no myth. I see it every day. 

Do you?

>I'm not quoting you theory. I'm not giving you party-line propaganda. This
>is my profession--I'm pretty good at it--I am not imagining things.

Mine too.  Let's see your examples.

>HTML 4.0 Strict + CSS IS a beautiful thing, I'll agree with that... *until*
>you look at it in a 3.0 browser. Or, for that matter, til you want to do so
>much as right-align something... that's another post for another list, though.

Hold on a sec, who said HTML 4.0 Strict?

Please don't set up straw men here.  HTML 4.0 Transitional is
just as much of a standard as HTML 4.0 Strict, and in fact, it's
the one that I recommend people design to.  The HWG website, in
fact, is designed to HTML 4.0 Transitional.

If you think people who are for validation are claiming "you must
validate to 4.0 STRICT!", then you're missing something vitally
important here, because I've never actually heard ANYONE make that
claim, not even the W3C (whose pages are likewise in 4.0 Trans).

For all I care, you can validate to HTML 3.2 or HTML 2.0 if you
like that better, as well as any flavor of HTML 4.0.  Adherence
to standards -- any standard -- is a good thing, not this evil
monstrosity you've built it up to be.

--
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn(at)idyllmtn.com>             http://www.idyllmtn.com/~kynn/
Chief Technologist & Co-Owner, Idyll Mountain Internet; Fullerton, California
Enroll now for my online stylesheets (CSS) class! http://www.hwg.org/classes/
The voice of the future?   http://www.hwg.org/opcenter/w3c/voicebrowsers.html

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