Much Ado about Valid HTML

@shopkanjiJan 21.2005

Besides bragging rights, why would somebody opt to use Strict HTML 4.01 over Transitional HTML 4.01?

Also, how important is it that your page has valid code? Some of the biggest and most successful websites have lots of errors in their code:

Google, 44
iTunes, 34
Yahoo, 249
eBay, 172

(Numbers by W3.org)

to post a comment

HTML

31 Comments(s) _↴

@Robert_WellockJan 21.2005 — #Answer 1. Because it separates more structural elements from presentational elements HTML was supposed to be a structural mark-up language.

Answer 2.

Do you have Firefox, if so download a XHTML page for example: http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/beck/ view the saved document in Firefox.

Next edit the source code and delete the start <body> tag for the body element, save that edited file with a *.xht or *.xhtml extension load the file from your computer into Firefox and stare in amazement at the "Yellow Screen of Death".

Yes I know it isn't HTML but why should browsers put up with sloppy malformed markup that is why we have bloat I bet you complain any time your computer crashes so it is about conforming to formal grammar.

Corporate business can financially afford to be lazy and sloppy especially if the browser compensates for HTML errors.

@the_treeJan 21.2005 — #Awnser 3:

Accesability, presentational html is confusing for screen readers

Awnser 4:

To make re-designs easier, all the design is in one file.

Awnser 5:

To save on bandwidth, see above.

@ray326Jan 22.2005 — #"Biggest" sites are usually "biggest" because they are "oldest", having accreted poorly constructed content for years. These sites remain in their legacy state because it is impossible to update them because they were so poorly built in the first place.

"Success" has to do with a lot of factors other than quality of construction.

http://www.zeldman.com - why

http://www.simplebits.com - how

@PeOfEoJan 22.2005 — #recoding a website in general is difficult when your website has hundreds of pages. The website was not poorly made the day it came out, it was hot crap with its html 4.0 doctype and all, but over the years better stuff came out. But a lot of the sites listed were not even valid back in the day either.

@Sir_JakeJan 23.2005 — #Shopkanji,

I for one agree with you, who really cares about validation. I've checked my site and it's loaded with errors according to W3, I mean foolish nonsence like , and - and ; yet the page is prefect in appearence. Once I had an error according to IE and it was a bad link, to me that IS an error since it actually effects the page, (only one link on the page but still). I'm glad IE informed me of this error so I knew to fix it.

I've heard many people say mixed things about validation or not, like they both have their up and down side. The thing that I find silly is this is only 2005...do you think this will matter in 10 years, of course not.

It's best to check your site in different browers but never over do it by bending too far to please one of the lesser used browers. If they can't keep up too bad for them, for now anyway.

Ya gotta admit though, it is so easy to tell if a site is W3 worthy or not...if it's tiny print with boxes everywhere, no style or imagination it's W3 approved.

@MstrBobJan 24.2005 — #Well, we have a very nice researched, and well thought-out response here, don't we?

(1) Does Validation make a difference? Of course it does. Making sure your page comforms to the HTML specifications is relatively easy. People who say "Why bother?" are merely too lazy to properly learn the language. In any sort of programming, if your syntax is wrong, the computer doesn't understand and the script won't run. How then is HTML, or any markup language different? The computer doesn't properly understand what you need and will attempt a guess. Like it or not, computers will only know and do exactly what they're told. So guesses are not very reliable. Often, two different programs will guess on the same code and have different results. It makes no difference, invalid markup will lead to longer debugging periods. It will most likely require more markup to get more browsers to do what you want them to do. At any rate, you're simply attempting to have browsers tricked into displaying the page.

(2) Accessibility is obviously hampered by invalid code. Mobile devices, audio browsers for the blind, Search Engines, and other devices like nice, well formed, semantic code. HTML 4.01 was created so that a wider array of devices and programs could access web pages. By writing horrid, invalid code, you are only limiting your website's potential user base.

(3) "It's best to check your site in different browers but never over do it by bending too far to please one of the lesser used browers. If they can't keep up too bad for them, for now anyway." If the lesser-used browsers can't keep up? Well, that would depend on which browsers we are talking about. Certainly older browser versions, like IE 5 and 5.5 should be able to access pages since they are used by a large portion of the net. Of course, if you are properly writing an HTML page, your page will be available to any conforming browser, regardless of that browser's ability to style the page. So, if you're writing proper, valid code, it will be much more available to these browsers. Let us not fall into the hole of "IE is the most advanced browser" because that's simply not true. In fact, if one were to compare the top browsers right now, Internet Explorer is the farthest behind, being that in does not properly support HTML 4.01 or CSS, doesn't properly or completely support the HTML DOM, and has incomplete XML support. IE must be catered to in terms of presentation, because it has the majority of web users.

The old HTML 3.2 methods with tabular layouts and "This site is best view in xxx" days are long past us. The fact that developers continue to create such sites is out of sheer laziness on their part. You will find that a valid, semantic HTML 4.01 page will display more uniformly across browsers, you'll be a lot more accessible, and cross-browser debugging will go quicker.

(4) Your overgeneralization doesn't surprise me. There are many well designed, valid websites. Including:

http://www.ryanbrill.com/

http://zeldman.com/

http://www.simplebits.com/

http://www.mozilla.org/

http://www.csszengarden.com/

and many others.

@PeOfEoJan 24.2005 — #I like this innovative site: http://wddg.com/

It was valid, but apparently they did something and there is a little smudge. But just because you use xhtml and css does not mean your website will be dull and plane.

Also, IE compensates for some bad code and 'assumes' you mean certain things, that is what it means when a browser is in quirks mode. Not all platforms are as forgiving, some will render thing correctly, render them by the books. If you want your pages to work properly on every platform you have to use valid code and you have to write it in a semantic accessible manner. If you do not do this you are not worth your salt as a webmaster.

@TriumphJan 24.2005 — #[i]Originally posted by Sir Jake [/i]

[B]... who really cares about validation...[/B][/quote]Forward thinkers. Future planners.

[i]Originally posted by Sir Jake [/i]

[B]The thing that I find silly is this is only 2005...do you think this will matter in 10 years, of course not.[/B][/quote]Standards compliant sites will still work in 10 years. The only thing that won't matter is those that didn't plan for it.

[i]Originally posted by Sir Jake [/i]

[B]It's best to check your site in different browers but never over do it by bending too far to please one of the lesser used browers. If they can't keep up too bad for them, for now anyway.[/B][/quote]I sure wish all my competitors thought like you because I'd be there to pick up all the business they've alienated.

[i]Originally posted by Sir Jake [/i]

[B]Ya gotta admit though, it is so easy to tell if a site is W3 worthy or not...if it's tiny print with boxes everywhere, no style or imagination it's W3 approved. [/B][/QUOTE] That's strange, because standards compliance has nothing to do with text size, visual style or imagination.

@ray326Jan 24.2005 — #Ya gotta admit though, it is so easy to tell if a site is W3 worthy or not...if it's tiny print with boxes everywhere, no style or imagination it's W3 approved.[/QUOTE] http://www.csszengarden.com

Let's just say you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about and drop it right there, eh?

@Sir_JakeJan 24.2005 — #I was addressing the validation of W3 not html. I tried to make that obvious...
it's loaded with errors according to W3, I mean foolish nonsence like , and - and ; yet the page is prefect in appearence.[/QUOTE]
I should have added performance as well. Since the errors in the code are noted (by W3 only) and still igored allowing the page to be as it is mean to be. So what then would be the point of telling me there is an error if it has NO effect at all on any browser? That's the real question.

MstrBob, your examples of well designed websites are exactly what I'm talking about. Didn't you notice most of them are identical? Three boxes, a top banner with two boxes under it, one larger than the other, on every page as well. The positioning was identical too and lacked imagination (main color, white).

PeOfEo, yes the site you noted is excellent, it mixes up the form yet still manages to keeps the same theme. There are always exceptions, thank you for presenting one.

Triumph, you honestly don't think there will be better systems developed (being developed now) for the future? Keep in mind the internet is still young and billions of people will be joining as the years go by. What always happens when many people get together...an intellectual explosion. With html, css, java...all of it, we are still counting on our fingers, (metaphor) in the realm of presentation ONLY.

@MstrBobJan 24.2005 — #[COLOR=deeppink]I should have added performance as well. Since the errors in the code are noted (by W3 only) and still igored allowing the page to be as it is mean to be. So what then would be the point of telling me there is an error if it has NO effect at all on any browser? That's the real question.

[/QUOTE]

So says you. That depends what browser you are using. What if you are using an audio browser? Or a textual browser for a mobile device? Or a search engine? Or what if an automated bot is accessing your page? It's far to easy to fall into your trap: "It works in a few graphical browsers, so it's perfectly fine." As I said before, invalid syntax means computers have to "guess" and they won't always guess in the same manner. Sure, to you things like an unencoded amperstand in a link might not seem like a big deal, because the widest used modern graphical browsers don't use them. Aye, but what if a search engine - which is conforming to the specs, comes across the amperstand and treats it like it seems - an entity reference. And then your URL gets messed up.

It's sheer laziness, no matter which way you slice it. Also, in addition, the facts you've noted about web design are by no means restricted to websites with valid syntax, it is the main trend in web design today. Simplebits, Zeldman, and many of the CSS Zen Garden designs aren't using white as a main color. As a matter of fact, if you spend but a few minutes looking at the designs on CSS Zen Garden, you will in fact see many designs that break the current mold. That is, if you actually read the website.

I don't think you properly understand this. Validation allows browsers and other devices to be leaner, faster, and much more accurate. It also allows for an expansion of our tools while keeping the main goal of the internet: To make information available to everyone possible.

[/COLOR]

@CharlesJan 24.2005 — #[i]Originally posted by Sir Jake [/i]

[B]I should have added performance as well. Since the errors in the code are noted (by W3 only) and still igored allowing the page to be as it is mean to be. So what then would be the point of telling me there is an error if it has NO effect at all on any browser? That's the real question.[/B][/QUOTE] But have you tried the page on [i]all[/i] browsers out there? Graphical and non-graphical, visual and non-visual? There are hundreds of them if not thousands. Only if your page validates is it 1) actually HTML and 2) likely to work on all browsers.

@Sir_JakeJan 25.2005 — #I don't think you properly understand this. Validation allows browsers and other devices to be leaner, faster, and much more accurate. It also allows for an expansion of our tools while keeping the main goal of the internet: To make information available to everyone possible.[/QUOTE]

Only if your page validates is it 1) actually HTML and 2) likely to work on all browsers.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!

MstrBob, there are what, 8 major browers and just over a couple hundred others. Where do you think the minor ones get there info from? The 8 major ones, they even give them credit by posting their sources by name (usually). As for mobile devices, how far have they come the past 5 years? From zero to a decent attempt, this progress will continue via competition alone.

Yes, Zen Garden is interesting but it is again an exception. You could no doubt come up with more examples and I could always name three more for every one you come up with...no prob (you could too if you tried). Prehaps too much time is spent dealing with W3 that design is an after thought. Prehaps more serves should allow full access of a page to build upon, (big Problem, leads to cramming).

Your comments are good and noted but do you see at least a bit of what I'm getting at?

loaded with errors according to W3, I mean foolish nonsence like , and - and ; yet the page is prefect in appearence. Once I had an error according to IE and it was a bad link, to me that IS an error since it actually effects the page, (only one link on the page but still). I'm glad IE informed me of this error so I knew to fix it[/QUOTE]

@CharlesJan 25.2005 — #The so called "minor" browsers get their "info" from the [url=http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/]HTML 4.01[/url] Specification.

Some years ago Browser Watch kept a list of different visual browsers. They numbered over three hundred without counting different versions of the soame browser and without counting non-visual browsers.

@PeOfEoJan 25.2005 — #Keep in mind the people do use those non visual browsers and those people are the def and blind. If you make a site inaccessible to them and they can prove to b harmed by it you will find yourself in court. AOL was sued just a few years ago because of website inaccessability. Not to mention you can loose profit when you lock your customers out of your store (in this case an online store).

@Sir_JakeJan 25.2005 — #If I don't tell you where the library (a site) is you can not read abook (html) from it. There are various capabilities and tools used due to experience and funding.

300 browsers sounds much more correct than thousands and thousands, thank you. I think we're all exagerating a bit here to express a point, as long as the valid points of each side are aknowledged.

I don't disagree totally with you MstrBob as far as today goes but it all just reminds me of discussing vhs vs beta....who won that one? Cds (neither) due to the times...flashback

?

@MstrBobJan 25.2005 — #[COLOR=deeppink]

Although, in the future we may not be talking about HTML, the arguments still all hold valid. There is no excuse for invalid code. No matter which way you slice it. Invalid is defined as:

1. Not legally or factually valid; null: an invalid license.

2. Falsely based or reasoned; faulty: an invalid argument.

[/QUOTE]

Invalid code merely helps in stagnating development of web technologies and harming the openess of the web. I don't get people's mentality about this. Like I've said before, if I try to compile a computer language like C++ or Java or the like, and there's a syntax error, it's wrong and doesn't work. Similarly, an invalid HTML page won't work. It may work in some instances, but in the end it fails to function properly.

[/COLOR]

@CharlesJan 25.2005 — #[i]Originally posted by Sir Jake [/i]

[B]300 browsers sounds much more correct than thousands and thousands, thank you. I think we're all exagerating a bit here to express a point, as long as the valid points of each side are aknowledged.[/B][/QUOTE] That number, 300, was limited to several years ago, venders not versions, and visual browsers. If you were to count all the browsers then you would easily top a thousand or two.

@PeOfEoJan 25.2005 — #http://browsers.evolt.org/ here are just a few of the browsers on the market. There are many that are not on this list. There is also nothing that stops me from just making my own browser, they are not terribly complex.

@Sir_JakeJan 25.2005 — #Charles,

As for the browsers, yeah a friend of mine started one last summer and well no offence to her but I would not include it or many others in her ranking due to it's usage. In the same respect of millions of websites I would not include blogs. I'm only sauing this for sake of an argument to address the relivent and because of the limited space of this forum. Yes, I am also generalizing to avoid knit picking which could lead to an endless pointless palaver of,...oh yeah? Yeah. oh yeah? Yeah,..lol.

MstrBob,

Thank you for your time and patience by the the way, I enjoy your replies.

Yes, you are correct, an error, even a silly syntax deal that actually effects the page appearence/performance has no excuse at all and needs correction asap. Absolutely!

However, if an error has NO effect at all, the error detection system used (W3) needs to re-think it's priorities. Is it an error for a REAL purpose, (no, not if there is no effect) or is it an error for the sake of following their system ONLY? <-- NOT to be answered as a consumer.

I've asked many if such errors are a concern from there veiw point (system's accessibility) and all seems to be in order except for a few minor yet acceptible differences, ( no loss of a/p), hence my veiw point and wonderment.

As the old saying goes..."If it's not broken, don't fix it".

@PeOfEoJan 26.2005 — #[b]However, if an error has NO effect at all, the error detection system used (W3) needs to re-think it's priorities. Is it an error for a REAL purpose, (no, not if there is no effect) or is it an error for the sake of following their system ONLY? <-- NOT to be answered as a consumer.

I've asked many if such errors are a concern from there veiw point (system's accessibility) and all seems to be in order except for a few minor yet acceptible differences, ( no loss of a/p), hence my veiw point and wonderment.

As the old saying goes..."If it's not broken, don't fix it". [/B][/QUOTE] Just because the error is not visible in ie does not mean that it is not going to effect other browsers though. That is what we have been trying to tell you. The big three browsers are not the only three in the world. Also, if you make a website that is inaccessible to nongraphical browsers you can even be taken to court, this happened with aol not too long ago.

Yes errors can be a major accessibility issue no matter how minor you might thing they are. The reason is the browser is thrown into quirks mode for that error and you have no control over how it handles the error.

If you have bad syntax or code that is just layed out inaccessibility it is broken and it does need to be fixed. A lot of the time fixing the problems will not even take long so there is no point in letting them exist.

@BeachSideJan 26.2005 — #You ask what about 10 years from now...

With the popularity of FireFox growing daily it is forcing IE to take notice. They have supposedly now become more commited than ever to producing a standards complient browser. Hopefully in 10 years the issue at hand will not be validation but will be how far can we push the boundries of valid code.

The internet community is beginning to finally understand that we need to have standards in place in order for things to go smoothly. Imagine if you will that there were no standards for nuts and bolts. You need a new lug nut to secure the wheel to your car so that you may safely travel down the road. Now imagine the mechanic saw a nut that looked close to the size you needed. Unfortunatly for you the nut was 1/32" too large. What will happen? The nut will eventually 'wiggle' loose from the vibration of the wheel as it is in motion. One missing lug nut is really no big deal but lose 4 out 5 of them and you have trouble!

@Sir_JakeJan 26.2005 — #The big three browsers are not the only three in the world[/QUOTE] I've asked many if such errors are a concern from there veiw point (system's accessibility)[/QUOTE]
(system's accessibility)<-- This means many diff browsers, devices, countries and languages Not 3, I thought I mentioned that already, (in less detail). It's odd to see your site listed in english surrounded by a diff language but cool.

Beachside,cool name. Your right as far as standardizing goes, the lack of it is what caused this whole discussion to begin with. I just wish I could find an error that hurts the page so I could fix it. No matter who I ask from where ever in the world they are, they can not find an error that actually effects the page, so far. Yet I know it's loaded with them from W3. eeerrrrr. Maybe if it does become the standard things will be easier. Oh oh, a 'maybe' always also means a 'maybe not' too.

@BeachSideJan 26.2005 — #Thank you about the name ?

It has no other choice but to go the way of standardization. The beauty of it all is that it will be a worldwide standard ?

@Sir_JakeJan 26.2005 — #Ah, but the standard has to work both ways, not just from the code maker (webmaster) but the code reader (browser) as well in order to work. Many people out here go on about...
Just because the error is not visible in ie does not mean that it is not going to effect other browsers though.[/QUOTE]
As things are now some browsers pick up 'meta' where others pick up 'META'. More to the point, some can not support true color leading to unsatisfactory results in images that can not be fixed with coding at all. These are the lesser browsers I'm refering to...I said too bad for them because it is too bad that their veiwers may realize the lesser quality they are settling for...

Someone replied, fine, "I'll pick up the business your missing"...not at all, we'll both still get the exposure at a lesser quality due to the browser not our code.

@PeOfEoJan 26.2005 — #[COLOR=deeppink]This meta thing is why we use a doc type jake, it tells the browser what code needs to be read. But no doc type and invalid code is where the browser has to start choosing what it wants to do.[/COLOR]

@BeachSideJan 26.2005 — #
[B]Ah, but the standard has to work both ways, not just from the code maker (webmaster) but the code reader (browser) as well in order to work.[/B][/QUOTE]

That is the idea behind the W3C. Now if they would [i]make[/i] the browser manufacturers follow these rules. :rolleyes: As it is now they (browser companies) merely follow them loosely to appease the masses IMO. This is why I applaud Mozilla's FireFox; while not perfect it is at least making a reasonable attempt to be standards compliant.

For those that say "well my pages displays perfectly with the errors so I don't care that it has errors"

Who's to say that with the next few major releases of browsers that these errors will not affect the display the way bad code does for other languages?

As things are now some browsers pick up 'meta' where others pick up 'META'. More to the point, some can not support true color leading to unsatisfactory results in images that can not be fixed with coding at all. These are the lesser browsers I'm refering to...I said too bad for them because it is too bad that their veiwers may realize the lesser quality they are settling for... [/B][/QUOTE]

The color issue will [i]never[/i] be solved IMHO! Why? Same reason TV’s don't display the same way. Different manufacturers. Think in real world examples i.e. car paint. Ford's Electric Blue may be very or slightly different than say Mazda's Electric Blue. They are both still used on cars they both are paint and they both are blue, electric blue for that matter, let's even go a step further and say they are the same paint. Maybe it will be different because the primer is different maybe because the metal is different, who knows? Bottom line is that they will vary.

I hope that made sense sorry if it didn't

BTW [B]PeOfEo[/B] that guy at the bottom of your sig can't be serious about Apple ? Love it when he calls them long haired hippies that is classic LOL:p

@Robert_WellockJan 26.2005 — #Well have fun: http://www.juicystudio.com/mime-type-test.asp

@Sir_JakeJan 26.2005 — #BeachSide, that made perfect sence to me, in constuction we are always dealing with dye lots, a product made on tuesday and then wednesday are made the same way with the same material and same dye but each is given it's own lot number since they are still different and should not be mixed.<-- nice run on sentence.

I can see your computer's #000066 and my comp's #000066 being different, cause they're diff computers, like your tv analogy. But #000066 should be the same on ONE computer in any browser, no? Maybe not, I don't know. If not, than that's just plain rude of the browser. Or should I take your tv analogy further and say on CBS (Mozilla) people are red and on channel NBC (Opera) they are blue? Hmmm...that seems right...right?

PeOfEo, good point but do all browsers comply to the doc type? I assume not but if they did we would have a prefect world right? (I'm not being sarcastic, we would, on the web only of course.)

Robert Wellock, yes that was fun. Found:All-1 Missing:bg image

Thank you!

@PeOfEoJan 26.2005 — #[i]Originally posted by BeachSide [/i]

[B]

BTW [B]PeOfEo[/B] that guy at the bottom of your sig can't be serious about Apple ? Love it when he calls them long haired hippies that is classic LOL:p [/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=deeppink]Everything in that article is the truth! ?[/COLOR]

@ray326Jan 26.2005 — #That boy needs to get his meds adjusted. 8-)

Also in #HTML _↴

how to put the drop down list into textbox Need Help for building system Text / Forms not selectable/usable in IE

Success!

Help @shopkanji spread the word by sharing this article on Twitter...

Tweet This

Much Ado about Valid HTML

31 Comments(s) _↴

Also in #HTML _↴

Success!

Social

Version

Much Ado about Valid HTML

31 Comments(s) ↴

Also in #HTML ↴

Success!

The web is an endless sea of information. Don't miss the boat... Subscribe!

Social

Version

31 Comments(s) _↴

Also in #HTML _↴