Re: Web Hosting

Ah -- -- Michael -- There is just something about Saturdays.

Let me qualify this by reciting my belief that you are talking about the web
sites these various hosting services have created for themselves.

First off -- just because someone provides hosting services and/or servers,
etc. does not mean they are --or should even be expected--to be experts of
every aspect of web development or HTML. After all, they have their own
unique set of problems to keep ahead of, in ensuring the "space/site" you
are leasing is working correctly. There are CGI scripts, ASP .htaccess, and
SQL support, etc. etc. Not to mention FrontPage Extensions, Cold Fusion, and
the guy that just can't seem to FTP without messing up the works.

They may be great at this aspect but still lacking in somebody's or
something's version of what "perfect" HTML is.

Here is where you are going to get me yelled at but I feel duty bound to
state the obvious.

The whole idea of "validation" assumes perfection. The scientific mind will
stoutly insist that perfection is an impossibility. There is just no such
thing as perfection. And--With the possible exception of my ex-wife's legs I
would have to agree.

And--while most on this list will offer W3C as the shinning example of that
so called perfection, all the argument and discussion that has occurred on
this list over the various DTD's should make it rather obvious that even to
us HTML gurus, there does seem to be several versions of that perfection.

I should also mention that there are several other "validators" around. I
have even downloaded a couple to my hard drive. Are they any more accurate
than the validation database build into FrontPage or Dreamweaver? The answer
does seem to be more one of religious belief than science.

If you actually took the time to research several hundred sites, you will be
in for a terrible shock. Not just a few--but the vast majority of them, will
NOT validate. However, most of them WILL display in your browser just fine.

Fuzzy has expounded at length on his method of insuring both validation and
general browser acceptance. And he is right as far as it goes. In fact--to a
point--I follow his advise.  But not even Fuzzy--in the heat of
argument--would dare claim that his method will insure that a site so
constructed will display every feature in every browser in the world. There
are just too many odd-ball features and too many browsers that may--or may
not support them.

Not to mention the dozens of little goodies that can be changed or turned
off by the surfer using their brand X browser.

Just like FrontPage is always criticized because a person can construct some
gosh awful sites in the program. [It does try to please]  So too, can you
create a site that will validate at W3C but still be nearly worthless to
those visiting it.

And so--I claim that there is no real answer here. After all, YOU are the
one who will be creating the web site that the host will be hosting.

I guess what I am saying here is:  You do you job and let the host worry
about theirs and you can be pretty certain that your client could care less,
just as long as it works in THEIR browser. [sad, cynical sigh]

Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
www.temercraft.com/novels/
www.newsredding.com/
www.ramac-rc.org/


> I know some of you do web host reselling and other stuff like that, but
when
> you look for a web hosting service do you just go for price?  Do you look
> for price and services?  Have any of you based you decision on the fact
that
> the web host site did NOT validate in the W3C html checker?
> The reason I ask is I have checked about 8 web hosting sites and none of
> them validate.  Is there a particular reason for that?  Or, should a
> webmaster not worry about the fact that they bust there butts to validate
in
> HTML and the WH Service does not?
> Should I support any of these companies that don't validate by sending
them
> a clients business?  In fact, the top five at Top Host
> http://www.tophosts.com/pages/webhost/ecomhost.htm
>
> did not validate.  Why is that?  Can anyone explain to me exactly what the
> W3C HTML validator checks for?  I mean, I just don't understand why one
> should worry about validation when the host site doesn't meet that
criteria.
> Well............other than the webmasters contract with the client saying
> that it will validate.
> One more thought and I will stop ranting.
> I personally believe if your going to do a job then you should do it
right.
> I fully intend and expect every site of mine to validate (when I get one
out
> there) and the comments I have made in this letter are for the sole
purpose
> of finding out why.  I am not saying that I won't worry about validation.
> That would be unethical.
>
> Thanks,
> Mikey
>
>

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