Read the blogs!
Started by Mexican_Pirate, May 27, 2005, 01:43:27 PM
Quote from: [Unknown] on May 31, 2005, 09:16:30 PMI'm glad to hear you don't care about: - my friend who largely uses a PDA. - my other friend who is blind. - my brother who often uses Links while recompiling his kernel to a new burning-edge version.Web standards are also about just plum being correct. If I see a website which isn't correct, it leads me to believe the person maintaining it isn't trustworthy; if they don't care to be correct with HTML, who knows what else they just "do what works" for?For example, I'd never hire a lawyer with bad HTML in his or her website. This means he or she either doesn't care enough to hire knowledgable people to get the job done RIGHT, doesn't do it right HIMSELF (or herself), or doesn't even KNOW there's a problem. Any of those three are sure to reflect on his or her legal practices.I see you don't talk lik u dnt now how 2 spely do u typ rite xcpt wit htm? I can stil red it! every1 can-[Unknown]
Quote from: [Unknown] on May 31, 2005, 09:16:30 PMI'm glad to hear you don't care about: - my other friend who is blind.-[Unknown]
Quote from: rudoka on June 01, 2005, 01:51:56 PMHere is my opinion on standards.They are surely made as a guide lines. And usually the purpose of the standards was/is to make a webpage look the same in EVERY browser. At least one of the purposes.Now, since some time I use one browser and I end up to sites that are usually broken, looking like hell. I turn over to IE and find it that it looks just fine.I looked at the html and css and whatever, did some research (I ain't an expert) and found out that those pages are broken in Firefox only because they are NOT standard compliant. Because Firefox didn't "understood" them. Which I found perfectly correct and acceptable. Some "standards" are also made for security issues, I suppose. Therefore I wouldn't want my browser interpretating something that is written bad (accidentally or planned) => therefore doing something that is not supposed to do. And yes. If I find a site that doesn't opens correct in the browser that I trust (talking generally here) then I don't open it. I won't turn to another browser that proved a failure (to me). People forget this., I hear saying: Oh but the majority of folks are using IE so we should write the pages for IE. Well, that's quite a bad attitude. We should write the pages for the PEOPLE, considering what is good and correct. For example, IE is NOT "good and correct" and I had the chance to prove this to myself over and over again. Other browsers I don't know, but the standard issue applies to them too.So let's just follow the standards. Rules and laws are made to be broken, but not this time. Rudolf
Quote from: rudoka on June 01, 2005, 02:17:38 PMHi Tau.I congratulate you.Your site looks good (in Firefox), and I like the look too. What I said wasn't that EVERYTHING that is not conforming the standards is broken. As a quick glimpse at your html it seems that it's quite clear and beautifully arranged. I can't verify it's validity, however a clean and well-thought job will end up in a good work. Now, of course, nothing is 100% standard compliant. Specially if it's acomplex website. Yet, everyone creating/designing websites should try to make them so. Xhtml or html doesn't matter. I don't know much the difference anyway. But the goal should be to write pages viewable by everyone. And the browser developers should work in that direction too. Not to create their own "standards". Obviously there are some who do not care about the "industry" standards (W3C). They include new "features" to lure people to their side. It's abattle for the market and for MONEY!!!Ack!! And what about us?? It seems that it is not your case. As I said, it seems that you are not one of those freaks, who include every stupid extra "feature" IE and other browser has to offer to them.Rudolf
Quote from: Tau Online on June 01, 2005, 03:05:34 PMI see what you're saying and it makes sense. Also thanks for the compliments So well formed HTML pages can be as cross-browser/compliant as XHTML pages?
Quote from: rudoka on June 02, 2005, 02:26:59 PMGood. Now, what was the topic of this discussion? Rudolf