W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2005

Re: validator - how true is it?

From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:17:29 +0000
To: ceo@alierra.com
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050128151729.GC27227@us-lot.org>

On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 05:07:15PM +0200, ceo@alierra.com wrote:

>    Ok. I see where my mistake is. I ... and, I believe, many others
>    too ...  consider the Validator report to show inconsistencies
>    within the browser (s). But if the site shows all right within
>    IE, Firefox, Opera, etc, then it should be considered a good
>    html-coded site.

I can't say that I agree with that opinion.

>    I believe if I at the very beginning indicate  <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
>    "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

Try HTML 4.01, it has a number of bug fixes. I also suggest switching
to Strict. In 2005 there really isn't the need to continue with
Transitional markup designed for the browsers of 1995.

>    and remove /> for self-sufficient tags like IMG, META, etc it
>    should solve all the problems.

I seem to recall spotting a number of other errors when I glanced at
your markup, but that would be a good start.

>    However, all these won't improve my browser performance.

Removing the need for browsers to perform guesswork as to what you
really mean certainly couldn't make performance any worse. By writing
to a common standard you also increase the odds of the page being
decipherable by user agents you've likely never heard of.

However, I'm not really wanting to argue the merits of authoring to a
common standard with you - there are plenty of resources on the
subject out there if you're interested.

-- 
David Dorward                                      http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Friday, 28 January 2005 15:17:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:18 GMT