RE: DHTML Style Guide: http://dev.aol.com/dhtml_style_guide

Earl.Johnson@Sun.COM wrote:
> Yes to both your questions: you are being cranky but you're also
> right about having a document that validates is a goal that
> should set and met in at least one release of the document before
> it goes final.

(Note to Dan - this is not to be construed as pick on Dan time, but rather
speaks to a much larger issue.  Thank you for the effort you have invested
to date - JF)

Earl,

It was in many ways a rhetorical question - those that know me at all would
probably get that, but let's move on.

Asking for some basic code validation *is* (IMHO) a realistic demand.  Would
you accept this as a valid discussion document if it was rife with sprellig
mistrakes?  I seriously doubt it, and so I ask what exactly is the
difference?  I'm not quibbling about an unescaped ampersand here or there,
but rather major and fundamental gaffs such as non-closed <li>'s and a
generally nasty mix of XHTML and HTML 4, all authored under the XHTML Strict
DTD - I mean, honestly, there are *TWO* frickin <body> tags on that page -
PUH-LEASE!!!

The "good enough for now" argument only goes so far: it's mighty darned hard
to live under the "do as I say, not as I do" banner when that is how I at
least make my living.  This is one HTML document, not a 1,000+ "page"
website all created in circa 1999 FrontPage - how hard really is it to
address really simple things like basic code compliance (if not complete
validation)?  That it is a Drupal driven page to boot is almost criminal, as
that Open Source tool has gone to great lengths to try and be as accessible
as possible, and have done an admirable job of it.

So having a document that at least shows a reasonable attempt to live by the
current rules we espouse should not be a goal, it should be an expectation -
not at the end of the process, but throughout.  Banging out a "strawman"
document that sorta works for most is a serious disappointment for anything
being discussed under the WAI banner - this is not some 5 person internal
memo, but rather a URL that was shared *globally* by the International Web
Standards authority (W3C), via the Web Accessibility division's (sic)
mailing list.  Sorry, that sets the bar just a tad higher (again, IMHO), and
if that makes me pedantic, then I wear that badge proudly. (From the French
noun Pedant: a formalist or precisionist in teaching)

> You can help by identifying
> then logging any validation errors preventing a sight impaired
> user from reviewing portions of the earlier drafts, it seems
> resononable to expect those to be fixed by the next update o the
> document.

I don't know whether to scream or cry.  I'll be sure to get the "sight
impaired" folks right on that, 'cause lord knows that pretty much sums up
web accessibility.  Now I *AM* getting cranky!

As requested: http://tinyurl.com/22b66z (for those that care: W3C's
validator report)

Summary: Failed validation, 691 Errors


As Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> I think if we cannot demonstrate that it really is
> easy to get it right, then there is no substance to the argument that
> the rest of the world should do so. 

Thank you Chaals.

JF

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 20:44:32 UTC