RE: Validator <I tried not to!>

Ok. I failed. I tried and tried to _not_ write this, but in the end my will
power failed me.


At 10:53 PM 7/26/00 -0400, Jennifer C. Swartz wrote:
>IMHO
>The W3C validator is *not* all you need to make sure you web pages render
>correctly in as many browsers as possible.  The W3C validator might tell you
>if your code is written correctly as far as they are concerned but it does
>not detect the subtle nuances of different OS' and different browsers that
>can make designing hell and definitely does not let you know when you have
>designed a page that is not accessible in older browsers.

1) You are correct in your statement that you need more then a valadator.
You need a working knowledge of the HTML and an ASCII text editor.

2) I hereby openly challenge you to name ONE element/feature/tag/aspect of
a ratified (by w3) standard that renders ANY page unaccessible to ANY
browser. 

It is true that if you make a ~purely~ frames based page, viewers with NN 2
and less won't see a thing if you don't include the NOFRAMES tags and
content. But that is not "bad" code, and it will not render the site
UNaccessible because of any fault in the code, that's a stupid coder
causing that problem!.

It is true that there are some browser quirks that make display of valid
HTML *different* between browsers. As an example, we all know that it
~shouldn't~ make any difference if there is space, a lot of space, between
an ending TD and the next beginning TD in a table row. But none the less,
NN will often display strangely if there is _any_ space between the tags.

But that is a very log way from rendering a page UNaccessible!

>
>As far as this comment made by one of the list persons...  "You are kidding
>yourself if you think corporations are worried about accessibility or
>interoperability" Well sorry to burst your bubble but private corporations
>only make up part of the web.  The policies of my institution are that all
>pages must be viewable in 3.0 browsers (or the equivalent) and above, and
>lynx.  While I adhere to the standards as much as possible, sometimes I have
>to compromise and use deprecated tags.

I write a lot of pages that are read using NN 2.0 and screen reader
software. Not one single time ~ever~ have I had a validated page render
unpredictably or unreliably ~ever~. In fairness . . . I always write to a
standard such as 3.2 . . . . but I'm supremely confident that even if it
was 4.0 (as long as it was the "strict" DTD) it would render reliably and
predictably in "my" NN2.0 browsers. As a matter of fact I'm confident
because I see these browsers regularly interacting with just such pages.



>
>I think the W3C is doing a great job in putting forth guidelines and trying
>to put some organization to markup and coding.  However, they are not fully
>there yet because their standards do not work in all browsers.  Yes, I know,
>everyone should use the latest browser possible and should always upgrade
>when the newest version comes out but that is just not reality at this
>point.  So, W3C's standards are not the defining factor.

Now I'm a little confused. Are we talking about _rendering ALL attributes _
or are we talking about page accessibility and functionality?

NN Doesn't support the <.MARQUE> tag, and MSIE doesn't do the <.BLINK> tag
but neither render a page unaccessible. I'm afraid you have lost me.

And just for the record: "So, W3C's standards are not the defining factor."
is pure crap. Without the w3 standards the web wouldn't work - period. Do
you really think browser manufacturers got together ahead of time and said
"Let's talk. We all need to be able to display the same basic thing so
let's create a standards based language before we build our browsers"?

You may. But the fact is that it would be putting the cart before the
horse. Before you can create a web browser you need to know what it -needs-
to support. The W3 does and has provided that base level functionality to
~anyone~ desiring to be in the web browser manufacturing business.


>
>I joined this organization because I take my job seriously and I am a
>professional who is always looking for ways to increase my knowledge.  I do
>not have to agree with everything this organization believes in to be an
>active member.

Heck Jennifer, you don't have to agree with ~anyone~ on this list
(especially me :-)). My only concern is that folks who are "less
experienced" not be misinformed by under informed opinions. With all due
respect I think that is exactly what your original message is based on in
this case: under informed opinion.

Please, prove me wrong by posting a single W3 compliant file that renders
the page unaccessible to ~any~ web browser version.

>
>You do need to check your pages in other platforms and other browsers if you
>are designing for accessibility or for the widest audience possible.
>

Again, this *is* true. But only if you don't know as much about HTML as you
should before you undertake such a responsibility. Yes, that is only my
opinion, and we all know about opinions :-)



>While my pages are not the most technologically sophisticated pages out
>there, they are well designed, professional-looking and I know are viewable
>by almost anyone wanting to look at them.

Amen. You do nice stuff Jennifer. Keep up the good work. The web needs
folks like you !!!

SeaYa,
Fuzzy
(Who is standing by to see those ratified elements that render a page
unaccessible)
__________________________________________________________________
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