- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: 16 Sep 2002 09:57:08 +0200
- To: James Ralston <qralston+ml.www-validator@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1032163033.1631.101.camel@stratustier>
Le ven 13/09/2002 à 22:19, James Ralston a écrit : > I'm trying to make a justification to management why our organization > should care about producing valid [X]HTML. > > The current attitude is: > > 1. We design our documents for a consistent "look and feel" > (using mostly WYSIWYG HTML editors). > > 2. Our documents render "properly" in Netscape/Mozilla/IE. > > 3. Why bother to take the extra time to produce valid HTML when > the "invalid" HTML works just fine? > > I'm sure people have written documents to refute these types of > attitudes. Unfortunately, I'm having very little luck in performing > web searches for such documents, because the phrase "valid HTML" > appears on about a billion web pages. You can have a look at the following articles: - "My site is standard! And yours?" http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/Web-Quality.html - "Buy standard compliant Web sites" http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements - "Liberty! Equality! Validity!" http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2001/validate/ - "HTML Standard compliance- Why bother?" http://wdvl.com/Authoring/HTML/Standards/ There are many many more resources on the topic. You'll probably get the best answers by searching in the archives of the public mailing list public-evangelist@w3.org at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-evangelist/ or by asking your question on this mailing list. Regards, Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/INRIA mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 03:57:17 UTC