Re: Validator

First, sorry. I didn't know how to edit this for length without destroying
the context of the discussion which I feel in this case, is important to
maintain.

At 10:46 AM 7/25/00 -0700, Ted Temer wrote:
>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 !!


Ted, excellent point. And one we have "all" agreed to recently here: An
editor alone *is not* going to cut it. The user of that tool _must_ have
some background knowledge in the actual HTML to create what I will call -
working - documents.

>
>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.

Again I agree. I think that if we (as developers) never push the envelope
no one will ever make a bigger envelope. In other words, if enough of us
(as developers) started screaming to make <.BLINK> "cross browser" it might
actually stand a chance of being ratified. As scary as that thought might be!


>
>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.

Here is where we part ways in terms of agreement Ted. I have seen no
demographic data to support a blanket statement like "the de facto current
"standard" in the most vulgar and practical sense--is IE-5". Now I won't
argue the vulgar part :-), but I don't support the IE-5 part. I think you
statement should have contained the disclaimer "depending on your target
audience" and it would have been appropriate. Know what I mean? Brief
example (I promise):

On-line stock trading: IE-5 is a safe bet

K-12 schools: Well I personally know of about 900 machines running NN 2.0
in one school district alone.

I feel this alone would support the position: "If you are writing to the
most viewers reasonably possible (whether that was a commercial site
selling Widgets or a non-profit community service organization) write
standards compliant code and you can be assured that all viewers will see
your document as designed".

>
>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.


We all know what a fanatic I am about validation, I won't go there again
except to point out that I have written a whole bunch of pages that contain
very, very browser specific code, that even worse . . . REQUIRES the viewer
to download and install a plug-in !!

Two reasons (in order):

1) Demographic research supported it.
2) After _careful_ explanation of the repercussions to "under equipped"
users the customer made the call to use that type of presentation.



>
>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.)

This is cool. I won't disagree a bit - see #2 above :-)

>
>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. 

Hold it a second please. I think we have established here that a WYSIWYG
editor is capable of generating valid code ~~~after a human cleans it up
~~~~. Is that not true? The statement should have a "can" in the place of
the "will" right?


>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.)

javascript. Canned Javascript.
Don't get me started on ~that~ Ted ;-)

Any other opinions lurking out there in List Land?

:-)
HTH,
Fuzzy
__________________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
sysop(at)mail.ruediger.leon.k12.fl.us
sysop(at)mail.woodville.leon.k12.fl.us
Member of the HTML Writers Guild and 
International Webmasters Association
------------------------------------------------------------------

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