Re: Standards

Thank you Tim J and David D


back to bug hunting i guess :(


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Jackson" <lists@timj.co.uk>
To: "Abyss" <info@abyss.ws>
Cc: <www-validator@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Standards


> Hi Abyss, on Thu, 7 Oct 2004 18:42:14 +1000 you wrote:
>
>> Then what is the point of having standards if the same code does not
>> work in different browsers?
>
> I think you're missing the point of both the Web in general and validation
> in particular. The Web is more than making sites "look good" in a couple
> of specific visual browsers. Here are a few thoughts to bear in mind:
>
> - user agents ("browsers") don't have to be visual. A few examples of ways
> people might access the web include on a PDA, mobile phone, via an in-car
> console or many other weird and wonderful ways that neither you or I have
> considered. That's the beauty of the Web: it's open, and people are free
> to use it in the way that suits them rather than the person developing the
> site, as long as the person developing the site does it properly.
>
> - user agents don't have to be either IE or "Netscape" (now mostly
> Mozilla)
>
> - (X)HTML/CSS is not a pixel-perfect page layout language.
>
> - Validation does not assure that a page is going to look the same in
> every browser. In fact, that's impossible. If you look at a site in Lynx
> (a text-mode browser), for example, then clearly it's not going to look
> the same as in a modern visual browser regardless of whether it's valid or
> not. If you're visually impaired and using a site with a screen reader or
> other accessibility technology then it's definitely not going to appear
> the same.
>
>> it defeats the point.
>
> No, it doesn't - it's just that you're misunderstanding "the point". The
> point of having valid HTML is that it's an important part (not the only
> factor by any means, but an important one) in ensuring that the site can
> be read and understood by any compliant user agent ("browser").
>
> However, in actual fact, developing standards-based sites *does* help the
> consistent presentation. From a purely visual point of view, you'll find
> that well-formed, standards compliant sites generally look very similar in
> equivalent installations of popular modern browsers such as Mozilla, Opera
> and Konqueror. Internet Exploder too, if you're willing to sacrifice most
> the functionality of CSS2 and stick to a subset of its capabilities.
>
> If you have a non-valid page then effectively all bets are off because
> you're relying on undefined error-correction within browsers.
>
>> ok browsers have bugs - understandable, but which browser is correct? IE
>> or NS?
>
> As a general rule, Mozilla and Opera are by far the best at rendering
> things according to standards. They are both pretty good. IE sucks
> extremely badly and has some huge bugs which only serve to demonstrate the
> utter incompetence and ignorance of the people who developed it. Just to
> make life even harder for you, the ways in which it sucks vary
> considerably between versions and even between platforms (IE5 on Mac is
> substantially different to IE5 on Windows, for example. In fact, they're
> pretty much different browsers.)
>
> Netscape 4, along with some other older browsers, is pretty much a lost
> cause, at least if you're trying to do anything much involving CSS. But
> that's cool, you can still make things work in it - they'll just be plain
> with basic structural formatting only.
>
>> or should i just stick the goldern rule of  - "program for the browser
>> that is most widely available"?
>
> No, that's silly. Being pragmatic, you may well want to verify that sites
> work well in popular visual browsers. However, with a bit of effort, some
> limitations and the occasional workaround, it's entirely possible to
> develop sites which are both standards-compliant *and* work well in all
> popular browsers, including that crap one with a big blue E which so many
> people have an unhealthy addiction to.
>
>
> Tim
>

Received on Thursday, 7 October 2004 09:59:29 UTC