- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 07:55:12 -0700
- To: jason r tibbetts <tibbettj@verdi.iisd.sra.com>
- Cc: "'www-validator@w3.org'" <www-validator@w3.org>, William Sheppard <will@nicnames.co.uk>
At 05:55 AM 5/24/2001 , jason r tibbetts wrote: >Companies aren't going to use valid HTML until two things happen: >1) The most ubiquitous UAs stop handling invalid HTML silently, and BTW, I don't agree with the common assumption that it would be a -good thing- if user agents started breaking horribly (e.g. like an XML parser encountering unwell-formed markup). In fact, I think this would be a very bad thing. >2) Authoring tools start producing valid HTML. I would wager that few large >corporate sites are done with hand-written HTML; most Web designers probably >-never- look at the source. Why should they? Eh, large corporate sites probably aren't even "written" as source anyway. There's as much onus on the people who create site generation/maintenance systems as there are people who create authoring tools -- in other words, Dreamweaver is only part of the picture, there needs to be support from people like Reef (the company I work for, and no, Reef is -not- at that point yet, but thanks for asking). Anyway, I agree with jason's primary point which is (if I can be allowed to restate): Change will occur if there are good business reasons and good support for valid HTML, and likely not from merely the threat of public embarrassment. This may be a better topic for a list other than www-validator. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Technical Developer Liaison, Reef http://www.reef.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://idyllmtn.com/ Online Instructor, Accessible Web Design http://kynn.com/+d201
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 10:55:24 UTC