- From: Andrew McFarland <andrew.mcfarland@unite.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 09:22:55 +0000
- To: <www-validator@w3.org>
Hello, At 08:09 01/02/2002 -0500, Damon Vaudrey wrote: >Does this mean that all these editors are making the code incorrectly? Yes. Most editors create invalid HTML. > As this is a little disturbing. Its more than a little disturbing :-) >I might add however, that my site appears to view correctly wherever I have >tested it - which leads me to think that your site is just catering for the >elitist, and is not crucial for a site to look fine to the rest of the >world...? In an ideal world where all browsers correctly interpreted HTML (and CSS) cross browser testing would be a thing of the past. All you would have to do is run your code through the validator, and if it was valid you would know it worked everywhere. This isn't an ideal world. Browsers do different things with the same code. Validation is still important for two main reasons: If a significant proportion of code is valid then there is more motivation for browser vendors to produce browsers that behave correctly, and more reason for users to use well behaved browsers. In time this will make the world more ideal. Valid code is much more likely to be useable in all browsers (and I do mean _all_ browsers) than invalid code. Cross browser testing of valid code is therefore easier than cross browser testing of invalid code: there are less things to look out for. And remember, you can't check your pages in every browser on every platform. There are a couple of browsers I can guarantee you haven't checked your pages in: Mozilla 1.0 and IE 7, neither of which have been released yet. If you keep your side of the bargain (producing valid HTML) and they keep theirs (correctly dealing with valid HTML) then you won't have to worry about them. Andrew -- Andrew McFarland UNITE Solutions http://www.unite.net/
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2002 04:24:10 UTC