Re: explaining validation

by "Thomas Bradley" <thombrad(at)visi.net>

 Date:  Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:07:29 -0400
 To:  "Lady Wistfulee" <nospammerstowistfulee(at)millenicom.com>,
hwg-techniques(at)mail.hwg.org
 References:  0020017605
  todo: View Thread, Original
I am fighting a similar battle but have lost because it is an intranet. I=
 explain it this way.
Beacause of the myriad different web browsers and computers. IT is=
 difficult to design pages that will work on most computers let alone look=
 correct or readable. Validation is a tool to ensure the code we have=
 written is a standard that all the browsers and their applicable versions=
 are at least supposed to understand.  For examples of non-standard:

You've ever tried to understand a tourist from another country that did not=
 speak English (substitute your spoken language (s)), or if you have tried=
 to make yourself understand in a far away country. 

Mixing English and metric systems.

If you do not code to validated standards, you have the potential to loose=
 customers or viewers because not all computers will be able to read the=
 code. Validation willl not only catch Front Page extensions that my PC may=
 not uunderstand but I suspect that if you use FP you are also relyiing on=
 IE for browser. IE allows coding errors that other browsers my not allow=
 (ex: IE allows not closing some tags such as < table  and < body where IE=
 will eventually figure it out. Also, validatable code will parse faster on=
 client PC's than non.

There's a couple of ideas to start with.

Thom Bradley 

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 9/26/00 at 9:44 PM Lady Wistfulee wrote:

>Hello Web Gurus...
>
>You all have taught me so much, I constantly refer to both these mailing
>lists & several regular posters when trying to either do or explain
>something.
>Well..I have to explain something...validation.  I have to go beyond what=
 it
>is validating for (3.2, 4.0 strict-trans-frame, etc), but *why* we have to
>do it.  The company I just started working for is just in the process of
>making the big move from Front Page 98 to FP2000...& have to stay with=
 that
>editor because of the various content managers who take over after a site=
 is
>created. I made a good argument for accessibility issues & "won" on that,
>but now I want to be able to say something besides "because we want the
>pages to work!"
>This is a "problem" for me because immediately upon venturing out into the
>web page making world I joined the Guild & have taken a lot of things for
>granted without necessarily knowing the why's, just that I had to do it
>(like running my pages through a validator--just wish there was a=
 JavaScript
>validator I knew of <S>).  I have waded through the w3c site & read the
>various specs, & try to follow them as best I can, but I am still somewhat
>new to this & don't want to sound as stupid as I think I am.
>Your input would be greatly appreciated.
>
>much alohas,
>Lady Wistfulee
>"He who asks is a fool for 5 minutes.
>He who doesn't ask remains a fool forever."

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA

This page is part of a preserved archive of archives.hwg.org. The site is no longer active and its content is not maintained. For enquiries about this archive, write to archive(at)iwanet.org.