W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 2000

good old HTML

From: Marcelo Perrone <mclist@terra.com.br>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:28:25 -0300
To: "w3-html" <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NEBBIELOFKHKNNGGGNJJAEIICHAA.mclist@terra.com.br>
Hi there,
	could you guys help me out pointing reasons why an HTML must be done
correctly even if when its not, the browsers display it correctly.

	eg. <td width="199"><img src="pixel.gif" width="200"></td>

	Browsers will display it as a 200 pixel width cell, but the td was defined
as having 199 pixel width.
	I could say it is wrong cause the cell is defined with a width smaller than
its contents width. But people come to me and say, "well, but my browser
shows me exactly the way I want it.". So I wanted to give some people over
here, serious reasons for writing good and structured html.
	The reasons I already gave were:
	1. Browsers must start "errors/exceptions" routines when some HTML error
appear like a closing </tr> table row inside a <td></td>, or a table cell
smaller than its content. Even if most of the browsers display it correctly.
User experience tend to be worse because of the page performance on loading
and parseing.
	2. Maintenance of wrong and badly structured HTML is not agile if you're
not the one who wrote it at first.
	3. Its not the right way to do stuff.

	I work in an "interactive media agency" - or whatever people call it -, and
for those who work with tecnology, my argument is obvious. Problem are those
who don't, like project managers, clients and stuff.

	Could anybody help me by pointing out more reasons?

Received on Thursday, 26 October 2000 13:25:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:55 UTC