Re: Is this all really worth it? (Was: More DTD)

> I have now gone completely off my rocker (and I am not even old yet.)
>
> All this talk about, HTML 3.2 HTML 4.0, 401, Transitional, Strict, XHTML
> 1.0, and different DTD's has gotten me completely confused as to what the
> heck to do with my code and how much time I spend on each and every page.
> Considering at least 4 to 5 pages change weekly, and possibly a few more
> major transitions are going to take place as well. I spend anywhere from 2
> to 4 hours a week making 5 minutes worth of changes and updates, and the
> rest of the time just trying to get the pages to validate, or be valid
code.
>
> Is this all really worth it?


No!

<TIRADE MODE ON> This should be a whole other thread.  I keep hearing people
rave about writing  good code...   but WHICH STINKIN' CODE is the right
one..... this week, this hour!

I am sorry,  I bought standards a long time ago and I feel the 3WC has
turned on us, I try to build good sites and have been doing this since <H1>
was brand new, but trying to write to 3WC specs is a lot like crossing the
mudflats and finding your in quicksand.  Like the guy from Maine says "you
can''t get theyah from heyah."

I use the non-spec tag modifiers:  MARGINHEIGHT="0" MARGINWIDTH="0"
TOPMARGIN="0" LEFTMARGIN="0" all the time as well as a lot of JavaScript and
other non-HTML stuff will never pass muster in anyone's code tester.  That
1/4" border around the window is tacky and I must use the JavaScript for my
forms verification.  That's not negotiable.

So 3WC builds a standard and they are sticking to it, no matter how dumb it
may be.  I believe in standards, but the standards need to reflect reality
and these don't.  Not really.  They decide what the standard is, and that's
it!  They don't care about non-standard tags, JS or other items that are
non-HTML.  They are firmly against them period.  Why?  Is it because they
didn't invent these other ideas?  I am beginning to think so.  Are they part
of the federal government or something?

In an ill-advised attempt to stay current even ahead of the game, they keep
creating goofy specs.  First it was XML and then it is reinvented as XHTML.
I won't even get into the DHTML fiasco or earlier ideas they had that died
fast.

I haven't really bought into the need for XML yet and they are trying to
push it down our throats with their new spec.  If your building a two page
personal website for a friend, it should take a couple hours.  With real
XML, not the 1.0 Near Beer or quasi-HTML variety,  you could spend a lot of
time just laying out it's implimentation, it's schema.  Where's the good in
that?   I get paid to produce visable stuff, not write my own web
sub-language  for each website.

I keep hearing about its cross-platform capabilities - to use the same data
more than once.  If I want a database driven website, there are lots of
other choices already out there that are much easier to work with.  They are
established, proven, and working now.  XML may do some neat stuff.... some
day.  But as long as there are lots of browers that can't use it, I won't
get serious about it. I can't.

If 3WC wants us to be serious about specs, they need to listen more to us,
and they need to build something we want to support.  I want specs, I need
specs, I am tired of this old West gunfighter concept we have of the net,
but there are other big issues that need to be taken care of too.  I am
tired of learning a new version every year.  Changes need to be incrimental.
XML is not really incrimental.  To make use of it requires a whole new way
of doing things.

I know there are lots of people with WebTV and similar devices and yet
others that surf the web on old 486 computers using Netscape 2.0 and 16 megs
of RAM, what about them?  If I want to build websites that sell stuff, I
need to market to everyone.  With XML that's not possible.

I was hoping that we would have a better method of laying out our webpages.
More control and better special effects without going third party for
plug-in support.  Did we get that?  Not really.  We are basically abandoning
all that for XML and yet a newer standard for style sheets.  Gimme a break!

                                                XML   JUST SAY NO!

<TIRADE MODE OFF>

If the 3WC wants to come up with new ideas, how about improving forms
handling, security, speed, or multimedia.

> Maybe I am not using the right software.  I have found that using software
> like Dreamweaver4 has some great advantages to usability by non-code aware
> folks.  I work on and try to maintain a Church web site.  Now I don't get
> paid in $ to do this but feel that I am doing a far better job then the
last
> webmaster. I have gotten the Church a domain name, a hosting site, and a
> similar look and feel to all the pages within the site.  But I am very
> afraid of trying to do more as it will impact my time with family and
other
> more important priorities in my life.
>
> Now here is my problem, I just spent over 20 hours of transitioning my
code
> to be XHTML 1.0 Trans compliant but as soon as I make an update, something
> gets messed up and I spend hours trying to fix it while maintaining the
> ability to use Dreamweaver to keep updating the pages. (The biggest use I
> get out of Dreamweaver is the Library and Template feature.) Does anyone
> have a "system" in place that they could share with me and the other list
> members on maintaining a site and keeping the code compliant and error
free
> with minimal time to implement? (i.e. it isn't your primary job)

Try Homesite.  It is powerful and has all kind of built-in tools for testing
your pages. It has several codesweepers including Tidy built-in.  As far as
keeping things in spec, good luck.  It's a moving target.  I have yet to see
an affordable and usable XML editor.

Paul Wilson
webgooru(at)gte.net

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