Re: Float overflowing behavior!

> <quote Ian Hickson>
> Well, sorry, but writing a Web page using only <span>s and <div>s, using
> tables for layout in a document labelled as being HTML 4.01 Strict, sending
> XML files as text/html or CSS files as text/plain, saying width:100% when you
> mean width:auto, giving alt attributes that contain titles instead of
> alternate text... that isn't standards compliant. Those violations might not
> be caught by the imperfect and limited validators that the W3C provides, but
> they are just as bad if not worse than the simple technical errors that are
> caught by these automated verification tools.
> </quote Ian Kickson>
> 
> Well, I understand that this is your *private* opinion, and you, as every
> human being, have a right for own opinion.

This isn't Ians *private* opinion, better read the W3C recommendations
again especially those of the WAI working group. Dont make such clams
if you're not aware of all the facts / material available.

> But I naturally disagree with your opinion quaoted above.
> 
> In particular,
> 1) writing a Web page using only <span>s and <div>s
> what's wrong with that?

It couldn't be done correctly without also using the
<!doctype>, <html> <head> <title> <body> and at least one <p>
but with the note that ALL the <span>s and <div>s need their
class and/or id set.

> 2) using tables for layout
>  --> here I agree. Thoughs different peole have differnet opiniuons what is
> *layout* and what is *structure*
This isn't just an opinion, again see the WAI.

> 3) document labelled as being HTML 4.01 Strict
>  what's wrong with this? It's much better than <html> without DTD.
> Of course XHTML is better, but HTML 4.01-Strict is *good enough* for most
> applications.
It isn't wrong, what Ian probably meant was the combination of useing
the strict DTD and the depricated elements and attributes.

> 4) saying width:100% when you mean width:auto
> How do you *know* what people *mean*? Do you have CrystalBall?
> 
> Using 'width:auto' when you need div taking all width, is stupid, STUPID
> approach!

If an author types 100% but meant auto it wrong and nobody but the
author can spot it. That was Ians point.

> 5) "Those violations might not be caught by the imperfect and limited
> validators that the W3C provides, but they are just as bad if not worse than
> the simple technical errors that are caught by these automated verification
> tools."
> 
> So, *good guys* wrote _perfect_ W3C specification, and there are *bad guys*
> using it in a wrong way?
> Are you SERIOUS saying this?
> If W3C designed bad specification, or offers bad validation tools- that's the
> problem of W3C, not of web authors!

What I interpret here is that there are people who are unaware (or maybe
even aware) of the COMPLETE contents of ALL related recommedations. And
that the tools for validation contain a few flaws (sush as not reporting
that the foreground colour is set but the background colour is left
default)
and it is impossible for a software tool to find all errors. Especially
the semantic errors.

Christian Bottelier

Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 10:54:26 UTC