Re: Validator

Fuzzy:

I'm sorry, but I think, (dangerous thing for me to do), that you may
have--in a sense--disproved your own argument. You state:

> There is nothing BUT a Validator that will tell you whether your page will
> display properly in all browsers.
>
> *ALL* the current browser manufacturers write their code to comply with W3
> standards - first. The difference is that (at least) the big two ADD to
> that basic standard to allow developers to add ADDITIONAL tags and
> attributes that add functions or features to a page that "only" the
browser
> specific code will work in.

It is that very difference that Paul is talking about. It does take MORE
than valid code to make a web page work. You have to know which features
will, and will not work in each browser. The only alternative is to regress
backwards to eliminate all those neat bells and whistles we all love and
want. Never Happen !!

Once Pandora's Box has been opened it is unrealistic to think mankind at
large is going to stuff all those goodies back in the box and seal it up. We
must remember that the "wishing for" and the "playing with" all the new toys
has always been the catalyst for the progress of mankind. The Web is no
different. And the vast majority of us are NOT going to sit around and wait
for W3 or any other "standards" group to incorporate these new features into
their standards.

We can argue over what might have been--who started it all--or what it
should be. And yes--you would "all" be right in your own way. But like it or
not--and right or wrong--the de facto current "standard" in the most vulgar
and practical sense--is IE-5. I'm not arguing it's "right", I'm simply
stating an all too obvious "fact". And please--don't jump all over the
messenger here. I'm not too sure I like it any better than you do.

So we all make our choices. For example. One of my former clients who is now
out on his own, made a business decision to create web pages for IE-4+
browsers and to heck with anything else. All of us--including myself--would
be at least, a little horrified at this. But in fairness, it does not seem
to have "hurt" either him or his clients in any measurable way.

After all, he is in the Advertising--not just the web--business. He makes
these tough decisions every day. Deciding to ignore the small percentage of
non-Microsoft browsers is in reality, probably no greater a business risk
than say--placing all your adds on TV and ignoring those customers who only
listen to the radio and/or read newspapers. (Or the reverse of that
scenario.)

So finally to the bottom line. I have to go with Paul more or less. After
all, any modern WYSIWYG editor will give you basic valid code. It still
comes down to deciding which of the browser specific features you will
include. And of course, this must also include those little JavaScript
applets offered by a host of outside vendors. (news, weather, books, music
videos, etc.)

The bald headed guy said it best: "Tizz a puzzlement !!"
Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
www.temercraft.com/
www.newsredding.com/

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